I can remember feeling shocked when I first heard
about the Milgram experiment. Some psychology students told me about the
experiment about 60 years ago, while I was at university.
At that time, the findings of the experiment caused me
to question my view of human nature. I was brought up to hold the view that it
is natural for humans to be kind and humane. That view is consistent with the
derivation of the words, “kind” and “humane”. It is also the view I hold now. The
findings of the Milgram experiment seemed to suggest, however, that a less
positive view of human nature might be more accurate.
In this post I will summarize the Milgram experiment
briefly before explaining why I have changed my mind about what it tells us
about human nature.
The
experiment was conducted by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University.
His aim was to explore whether individuals would obey instructions to harm
another person when an authority figure told them to do so. The first results
of the experiment were published in 1963.
Participants
in the experiment were led to believe that they were assisting in a learning
experiment in which they were “teachers” who had to administer electric shocks
to a "learner" who made mistakes. The electric “shocks” were fakes. The
“learners” were actors. They made audible protests in response to the fake
shocks. As the voltage increased, the “learners” protested more.
The main
finding of the experiments was that a very high proportion of subjects fully
obeyed the instructions - 65% were willing to apply the highest shock level. The
experiment was replicated several times with similar outcomes being obtained.
When I first
heard about the study, the message I took from it was that most humans are
horrible. People claim to have regard for the well-being of others, but when it
comes to the crunch, most people lack sufficient empathy and/or moral fortitude
to refuse to inflict pain on others. The worst part of it was that I wasn’t
confident that I would have been one of the minority who refused to apply the
highest shock level.
However,
when I recently read an article about the study I modified my view of the
participants. They didn’t lack empathy for the victims. It was obvious from
their behaviour, including symptoms of stress, that they were uncomfortable following
the instruction to inflict pain. Every participant paused the experiment at
least once to question whether they should continue. In interviews following
the sessions, participants frequently described feeling tormented by what they
believed they were doing.
Participants
only continued because the instructor insisted that they do so. The instructor
began by asking the participants politely to “please continue”. If they
continued to object, they were told: “The experiment requires you to continue”.
If they still objected, they were told three times that they “must continue”.
Milgram’s subsequent
experiments showed that obedience was affected by a range of factors e.g. the
uniform of the instructor, the location of the experiment, and the presence of social
support. In one experiment, two confederates in the room refused to administer high
levels of shocks. In that context, only 10% of participants were willing to
administer the highest level of shock.
On the basis
of his findings, Milgram suggested that the obedient participants were in an “agentic
state” where they had allowed others to direct their actions and then passed
off responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.
Alexander
Haslam and Stephen Reicher have suggested another factor that may explain the
behavior of the obedient participants. Rather than simply caving in to orders,
they may have believed that they were contributing to a worthy scientific cause.
My conclusion
I am no longer surprised that 65% of participants in the Milgram study ended up doing what the instructor told them to do. They had good reasons to respect the authority of the instructor. They believed they were taking part in a scientific experiment being conducted at a reputable university.
The outcome
of the experiment reflected excessive respect for authority rather than a lack
of empathy with other humans.
The main
point I take away from the findings is that people need to recognize that if
they want to behave honorably towards others, they may sometimes need to
disregard instructions from authority figures.
The findings of the experiment do not provide a reason to question the view that empathy for others is a characteristic of human nature which is suppressed only under extraordinary circumstances.
