The Milgram Experiments

[otherlander]

So I've been thinking about this lately... Last year in sociology class, we learned about the Milgram experiments. I had already heard about them a couple years before that- right here on DU, actually. But what I've been thinking about lately is something my sociology teacher said: that today, a sociologist wouldn't be allowed to do what Milgram did back then, because it would be unethical. Well, I have to say, that's bullshit. If you electrocute a stranger just because some man in a lab coat says you should- not coerces you into doing it, not threatens violence against you if you don't, but just SAYS YOU SHOULD- and you choose to do it of your own free will, the fact that you suffer from guilt after doing it DOES NOT MAKE YOU A VICTIM. It makes you a perpetrator. And if you feel guilty about it, good. You deserve to feel guilty about it. And you have no one to blame but yourself. There's nothing unethical about telling someone to do something that they'll feel guilty about doing, as long as you leave them with the option to say, "No, I won't do that." If they choose to do it, you have done nothing wrong.

I think they should do the Milgram experiments again. Except, this time, they should do it with people with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. That would be interesting. When asked to electrocute a stranger, the volunteers would probably just say, "No fucking way." Test Results: People With O.D.D. Less Likely To Assault Their Peers. Hmmm... maybe it's not such a "disorder" after all, eh?

[Happyhippychick]

1. People are very complex, it is not a black and white situation. Many can be coerced

into doing things that they would normally find morally reprehensible. That doesn't excuse behavior, it explains it. And it doesn't mean that every single person would succumb to immoral behavior in the same circumstances.

Ethical treatment of subjects is something that elevates all of us as people, it's not just done for the benefit of the subject him (or her) self.

Can you tell I'm a researcher? :)

[90-percent]

2. I think

I think the Milgram experiments were outlawed because the subjects REALLY THOUGHT they were electrocuting the test subjects behind the door.

The purpose of the experiment was to see if people are so controlled by authority figures that they would actually kill an innocent person if the authority ordered them and told them not to stop.

Ties in nicely to what Naomi Wolf says in this piece that we must make viral about soldiers in American rounding up civilians during martial law, which we should be enjoying in a matter of mere weeks.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI


-90% Jimmy

[bean fidhleir]

23. That's what was claimed as the basis for the outlawing, but as Milgram

demonstrated (see his comprehensive Obedience to Authority (1974)) he debriefed AND followed up his subjects, and they were unanimous in their agreement that it was a superb experiment from which they derived significant, lasting personal benefit.

It doesn't take a suspicious personality to deduce the real reason for the ban.

[amdezurik]

3. fact it they are no longer needed

their validity has been proven over and over. look at Gitmo, look at the troops all to willing to shoot other Americans for stepping out of "line", look at extrodinay rendition. It no longer exprimental, it is real world now...

[damntexdem]

4. Stanley Milgram's experiements cannot be replicated today, because of human-subjects protections.

But we often don't hear about another series of experiments Milgram did. In those, he had a set-up like the original, famous, experiments, with the difference that an experimenter posed as an additional subject alongside the actual subject. Then, during the experiment, the fake subject started objecting to the instructions to increase voltage, and finally refused to go on. The results: when there was a peer who was also objecting, almost no subject obeyed all the way -- having an ally meant greater ability to reject unethical authority. The lessons regarding the necessity to organize collective opposition to unlawful, unethical authority are obvious.

[otherlander]

6. Yeah, I heard about those, too.

But what exactly is it that the human-subject protections are protecting human subjects *from*, in this case? From feeling guilty about their own choices? That makes about as much sense as a man who beats a woman to death suing her family for damages incurred to his knuckles and fingernails.

[Caliman73]

7. protection from being deceived

and causing emotional trauma. The subjects in the experiment did not know that they were the subjects. They believed that the actor in the other room was the subject and they were only assisting. It is easy to look at Milgram and say, "I would never do it". The fact is we really don't know. Given the right circumstances, it might be very difficult to maintain integrity.

Also, Oppositional Defiance Disorder isn't about being stubborn and resistant to abuses of authority. It is a childhood disorder about the child's inability to follow ANY rules including the social conventions that keep them functioning within society.

Diagnostic Criteria

1. A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of the following are present:
Note: Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level.
1. often loses temper
2. often argues with others
3. often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
4. often deliberately annoys people
5. often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
6. is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
7. is often angry and resentful
8. is often spiteful or vindictive
2. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.
3. The behaviors do not occur exclusively during the course of a Psychotic or Mood disorder.
4. Criteria are not met for Conduct Disorder, and, if the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for Antisocial personality disorder.

[90-percent]

5. also

Thanks for the term "Oppositional Defiant Disorder".

That's a badge I'm already proudly wearing, but didn't realize it until I read the term in the OP. (My last psychology or sociology course was around 1977)

Still beats being a Republican!


-90% Jimmy

[antigone382]

8. I'd say the oppositionally defiant are rather gifted.

Though they can be impossible at times, I admire the few that I know for relying solely on their own ethics; but like it or not, they are the exception. I look at the Milgram experiments, the murder of Kitty Genovese, the Holocaust, and other examples of mass cowardice and inaction, and am forced to draw the conclusion that self-preservation and avoidance of disrupting the social order are dominating aspects of human behavior, as they are in other social animals. Now, from this I might develop an attitude of condemnation and superiority towards the rest of humanity, but I would be missing the real lesson here.

Granted, I don't know your personality. You may be so enlightened and well-adjusted that you would never commit brutality against another due to fear, rage, or any reason. Personally, I do not have that certainty. I'm obssessed with my own morality, and if instructed to harm others I hope I would not submit; but I am a pretty compliant person, and knowing that statistically, most people placed in those situations do submit, I am humble enough to admit the possibility that I would follow instructions and mentally "wash my hands" of the blame. If I am ethically superior to the subjects of the Milgram experiments, I fear it is only because I have their widely known and thoroughly analyzed example of ethical failure to warn me; I am safe from the moral torture of repeating their mistakes because they made them first; thus I find their fate cruel and unfair.

I've found that all humans are animals, capable of the extraordinarily benevolent as well as the extraordinarily monstrous. I'm not confidant that even the oppositionally defiant people I know wouldn't accept or participate in systematic brutality if they were socially conditioned to do so. Even the supposedly enlightened, such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. allegedly committed their share of selfish and cruel acts against those around them. That doesn't cancel out their positive impact in the world; it emphasizes our own capacity to have the same impact despite our grave flaws. You don't have to be a Christ figure to play a beneficial role in the universe; awareness of your own overwhelming tendencies towards violence and cowardice is the only way you can really attempt to overcome them.

Edit: I guess the ultimate point I'm trying to make is to try to really put yourself in the test subjects' shoes. Yes, their moral failure was catastrophic, but given certain fundamentals of human nature (or nature in general), it is totally understandable. I can't help reacting with empathy and compassion for the guilt that would follow such a grave lapse in moral judgment in such a tense situation.

[otherlander]

9. But here's the thing:

I have followed immoral orders. I have done nothing when doing something could have made all the difference. And yes, I feel guilty about it. I take full responsibility for my actions, and I do not try to blame authority figures for "making me suffer from guilt". I realize that the only reason I feel guilty is because of decisions I made of my own free will. I don't hold the order-givers responsible in any way for my unethical compliance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. "I don't hold the order-givers responsible in any way for my unethical compliance."

Both order givers and order followers have responsibility for the harm they cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

500 civilians were killed at My Lai. Only one person, William Calley, was convicted of any crime for which he served only one month. In contrast, those who reported the crimes were subject to death threats.

The milgram experiments were medically unethical because the test subjects suffered PTSD from it. In the bigger picture, the experiments forcefully demonstrated something that we need to know about our fellow humans. We still see it today. The judge who just ordered 18 innocent prisoners released from their gitmo will be punished to a far greater degree than the guys who perpetrated the war crimes by putting them in the dungeon.

[otherlander]

12. The order-givers, I think,

are responsible for harm caused to the victims, but not responsible for the emotions of the order-followers. Since the "victims" of Milgram's experiment were, in fact, only pretending to be electrocuted, I don't think he did anything wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Even the weak minded should have a reasonable expectation that they won't be harmed by experiments.

The Milgram experiment was probably one of the more valuable insights into human sociology. Nevertheless, "do no harm", right?

The point I am making is that most people failed the Milgram test. Do most people, simply by virtue of their weak ethical makeup, deserve the trauma which Milgram's test subjects suffered?

We know the answers to the questions that Milgram asked. There's no reason to do 'em again. I see little benefit in testing to see which groups (those who have ADD, in your example) are ethically weak and who are not.

[aikoaiko]

22. Was there documentation of harm?

Or the PTSD that you mentioned in your other post?

[bean fidhleir]

24. You *REALLY* need to check your facts, Jeff!

Milgram did a comprehensive debriefing and 2 followups with each of the subjects.

Each subject met with the "victim" and was reassured that the victim received no shocks and was happy to have worked with the subject. They also had a conversation with the experimenter (not always Milgram) in which the purpose of the experiment was explained and it was confirmed for each participant that s/he had behaved normally and responsibly.

Milgram also sent a copy of his final report on the experimental series plus a followup questionaire to every participant.

He reports that *92%* of participants returned the followup questionaire (a very high percentage).

Of them, 84% said they were glad to have been chosen to participate; 15% felt neutral about it; only 1.3% had negative feelings. Also, 80% felt that *more* such experiments should be carried out, and 74% felt that they "had learned something of personal importance" from their participation.

A year later, an experienced, uninvolved psychiatrist conducted a clinical interview with each of the 40 subjects thought to be the most at risk of long-term harm. The psychiatrist concluded that, although the situation had been extremely stressful for several of the subjects "none was found by this interviewer to show signs of having been harmed by his experience. . . . Each subject seemed to handle his task in the experiment in a manner consistent with well-established patterns of behavior {nobody went off their rails, in other words}. No evidence was found of any traumatic reactions".

(This is from Appendix I in Obedience to Authority)

[yardwork]

10. When is a terrorist a freedom fighter?

Very good point.

[aikoaiko]

14. To be perfectly honest -- its not clear whether or not the basic milgram study could be approved now

I happen to teach a course in Ethics in Psychology and the Milgram obedience study is great fodder for discussions. And as far as I know it is an open empirical question as to whether or not a Milgram obedience type of experiment could pass a contemporary IRB review. I think a direct replication would be difficult to get past the Institutional Review Boards, but with a few changes one might be able to get it approved.

The biggest complaint against the Milgram study is what we've come to call "forced insight". The participants agreed to help with a learning study and 65% learning they were the moral equivalent of Nazi concentration camp gas chamber operator. This really was a terrible burden and not what they signed up for. Surveys of Milgram's participants a year afterward recorded strong negative reactions with very few participants (2% IIRC). However with a clever informed consent form and some changes in procedure (especially what the experimenter says to the participants to make them obey) I think it could pass IRB review.

One of these days, I might just try it.

[aikoaiko]

15. whoops slam fire

[aikoaiko]

16. whoops slam fire

[aikoaiko]

17. whoops slam fire

[aikoaiko]

18. whoops slam fire

[aikoaiko]

19. whoops slam fire

[Selatius]

20. This is why it's so fucking important that you don't allow totalitarians into leadership positions.

Otherwise, you're going to have a shitload of people at war crimes tribunals who will simply say that they were just "following orders."

[aikoaiko]

21. whoops slam fire

[Marie26]

25. Don't agree

It's basically putting people into a situation of coercion & duress. Whether or not they get over it later on, they're put under extreme psychological stress at the time. For what? Sociologists already know the Milgram results. We really have no idea of the psychological force of authority figures until we're put in that position. "False confessions" are one of the number one reasons that innocent people are convicted of felonies. People will confess to murder, rape, whatever, just to get out of that interrogation room. People might also commit a crime under orders from an authority figure, just to get out of that room. Maybe a better lesson is just to be REALLY careful w/who we give authority to, knowing how much coercion power they will wield.