It is characteristic of a person ... to obey

In July of this year, it turned half a century to one of the most unethical experiments in the history of psychology - the experiment of Stanley Milgram, or Eichmann’s test related to the problem of submission to authority. The social psychologist, who worked at Yale University, proved that human actions often depend not on himself, but on the situation in which he finds himself. The need to subordinate to authority is so deeply rooted in the mind of man that he is able to fulfill even those orders that go against his concepts of morality.

Milgram began his experiments in 1961, almost immediately after the arrest and trial of the Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann, the head of the Hestapo department, who was responsible for the “final solution to the Jewish question”. Eichman was charged with crimes against the Jewish people, humanity and war crimes, but the defendant claimed that he was just fulfilled orders.

Being impressed by the materials of the process over Eichmann, Milgram decided to find out how far a person was ready to go, following orders, and how he would decide a moral dilemma in conditions of powerful social pressure.

Milgram developed the experimental methodology in the calculation that he would conduct it in Germany, because, in his opinion, the inhabitants of this country are historically prone to obedience to power. But when testing the methodology in the American city of New Hive, it turned out that obedience to Milgram is enough in his homeland. Therefore, the experiment was held in the United States.

The psychologist invited the so -called “naive subjects” - people who are not aware of their role in the study - using announcements in the newspaper. For work in the laboratory, volunteers were promised 4.5 dollars.

The laboratory hired by the announcement fell in pairs. The experimenter who was waiting there said that they would take part in the study of the influence of punishment on training and memorization. And therefore, one of the participants will become a “teacher”, which will lead the memorization of paired words.

To punish the second participant - the “student” - for errors will be using an electric discharge of increasing intensity.

For the reliability of the experiment, the roles were distributed using lots. Volunteers recruited by the announcement did not know only one thing - that a piece of paper with the inscription “student” always takes out not the same ignorant volunteer, but a dummy person who helps to conduct an experiment.

The volunteer who became the “teacher” was given to try a light discharge of current, and then he watched his “student” tied to a chair and strengthened the electrode on his wrist.

“Teachers” were planted beyond the remote control of the current generator with a switch in the range from 15 to 450 volts with a step of 15 volts. To improve the understanding of the meaning of punishment on the switch, they put notes: “weak blow”, “very sensitive”, “life -threatening”, and on the contrary at 435 and 450 volts, scientists put an ominous note “XXX”. According to the rules of the experiment, the “teacher” should increase the strength of the category by one step whenever the “student” is mistaken.

The "teacher" hears how the "student" cries when the current power reaches 75 volts. At 120 volts, the current begins to cause a serious pain to the “student”, and on 150 volts he asks to complete the experiment. If the “teacher” obeys the requirements of the experimenter, on 270 volts he hears screams and prayers to stop the torture, with 300 volts the “student” begins to wheeze, and after 330 volts falls silent.

To force the “teacher” to continue work, the experimenter pronounces only four phrases: “Please,“ further ”,“ the experimental conditions require you to continue ”,“ it is extremely important that you continue ”and“ you have no other choice, you must continue ”. And the silence of the “student”, who received a category of 330 volts, the experimenter suggests interpreting as an incorrect answer.

As a result, it turned out that out of 40 men of different professions and ages that took part in the experiment, 63 % reached the use of 450 volts, inferior to the requirements of the experimenter. Moreover, they obeyed the team to continue until they were stopped.

When Milgram only planned the methodology of the experiment, it was assumed that people would stop at 135 volts. The psychiatrists interviewed before the experiment believed that no more than one out of a thousand would reach the “XXX” mark.

After the first experiments, Milgram slightly changed the conditions of the experiment, asking for the manifest “students”, who, of course, were not tortured with electric shock, play more compassion, referring to a weak heart. But this did not bring the result even: out of 40 new volunteers, 65 % followed the instructions of the experimenter and reached the “XXX” mark.

Despite the criticism of the experimental procedure, the results of which are published in the article “Behavual Study of Obedienc” in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1963 [1] , Milgram continued experiments in various social conditions and was able to receive up to 93 % of unconditional submission to the requirements of the experimenter. As it turned out, the subjects experienced less sympathy for the victims that they did not see or did not concern. For example, if the experimenter forced the “teachers” to press the “student ”’s hand to the electrode, the level of submission fell 30 %. And only 21 % of the subjects submitted to the instructions on the phone: in order for a person to comply with orders that give them in the immediate vicinity.

In addition, it turned out that the execution of orders is affected by the authority of the one who gives them. If the harsh experimenter was replaced by an alternate “clerk”, 80 % of “teachers” refused to obey him.

The influence of the group turned out to be serious: if the ambush “assistants” refused to obey the experimenter, up to 90 % of “teachers” refused to continue the experiment alone.

Nevertheless, in the classic version of the experiment, most of the participants obeyed the order. Moreover, women showed no less “bloodthirstiness” than representatives of the stronger sex who took part in the first experiments.

“Teachers” fell into a trap of phased inclusion in the situation: starting with safe 15 volts, they committed a “slightly more” cruel act, giving way to the requirements. In addition, according to Milgram, the further the experiment continued, the lower the “teachers” of their “students” were evaluated, explaining that they deserved a punishment for a lack of intelligence.

Critics accused the psychologist of causing mental suffering to subjects. Indeed, during the experiment, the “teachers” experienced serious stress, but the survey after its completion showed that 84% of volunteers were happy to take part in it. And the examination by psychiatrists of 40 people who experienced the greatest discomfort showed that a year later the experienced stress did not harm the mental health of the experimental participants.

The study of Milgram still causes a lot of disputes over the ethical aspect of the use of unprecedented volunteers in the experiment. Subsequently, the American Psychological Association even developed the ethical principles of socio-psychological research in order to avoid inhumane treatment of subjects. The number of requirements now include the complete informing of the participants in the experiment about its conditions and their protection against serious discomfort.

Nevertheless, the study of Milgram, despite its cruelty, has become classic for psychology. After all, it showed all the clarity that the most ordinary people can act destructively. And the point is not in the properties of character, but in the fact that the influence of moral principles ends when a person is faced with pressure from authority. After all, obedience is one of the main human features and a deeply rooted form of behavior necessary for normal existence in modern society. But it sometimes leads to the fact that people simply fulfill the orders of the authorities and are not responsible for their own actions.

1. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1963, Vol. 67, no. 4, 371-378