Stanley Milgram submission to authority. The motives of a young man

Stanley Milgram conducted a large number of interesting and masterly experiments. The goal of his research was to identify the mechanisms of compliance with social residual norms, that is, the rules governing the daily activities of a person. Such norms are determined by two criteria: 1) the majority of people agree with them and automatically fulfill them; 2) these norms remain invisible until they are violated. Experimenters provoked people to violate residual norms.

Milgram's first experiment took place on the New York subway. One of the rules of behavior in the metro is based on the principle “whoever has time, gets on.” Another rule is to refrain from talking to each other. The experimenter's assistants were psychology students. The subjects are metro passengers. Milram's assistants in the subway car addressed the seated subject with the words: “Excuse me, would you give me your seat?” As observations showed, 68.3% of the subjects gave up their seats. Milgram interprets this behavior as a violation of residual rules. Experimenters have identified social compliance - people do not seek to defend residual norms (112, pp. 55-61).

Milgram's second experiment was aimed at studying the reaction to queue intrusion. He distinguishes between two types of queue. The first is an orderly queue (making an appointment with a doctor, issuing numbers). The second is a disorderly, spontaneous queue. Spontaneous queueing is a phenomenon social order, which obeys general socio-psychological laws. The queue represents classic example how people create social order based on the elementary principle of justice. Milgram studied the reactions of those standing in line to violators of order and justice. He describes three observations on the problem of intrusion. First, people rarely act in concert to drive out offenders. Second, although others may express disapproval, the responsibility for expelling the intruder falls on the person directly behind the point of intrusion. Thirdly, those who stand before the point of invasion will protest least of all. In theoretical terms, Milgram wanted to discover the connection between the defensive reaction of a queue and its most characteristic feature: the linear arrangement in space of its participants. How does this unique spatial configuration affect how the queue protects its integrity? The results of the experiment showed that only 18.2% of people who occupied a position in line behind the intrusion point, and 8% of people who stood two people behind the intruder, expressed their protest in one form or another. Physical actions were used against the offender in 10.1% of cases, verbal opposition - in 21.7%, non-verbal actions (hostile glances, gestures - in 14.7% of cases) %. The experimenter's assistants noted that the task of intrusion caused them extremely negative emotions; it took them a long time to gather their courage. For some, the fact of the invasion was accompanied by physical symptoms of nausea and pallor (112, pp. 62-74). In general, Milgram's experiments demonstrated the fact of a lack of assistance to each other during the process of standing in line and the fairly easy penetration of strangers into it. Such behavior of people surrounded by a large number of strangers can be described as social compliance.

Crowd pull effect

Milgram's third experiment was aimed at identifying the relationship between the number of people in a crowd and the force of its attraction. Drawing on the ideas of Coleman and James, Milgram believed that any freely forming group reaches its maximum size by naturally gaining and losing its members. In an urban environment, a crowd has the ability to attract other people. He suggested two multidirectional trends: the first is the constant desire of a group member for independence, the second is the desire of an individual to join the group. There is also a “contagion” factor - a person is more likely to join large group, rather than to small.

Stanley Milgram conducted a study on group attraction different sizes. A stimulus group was created. The number of participants varied from one to 15 people. The experimenter's assistants - members of the stimulus group - looked at the window of one of the houses in New York for a minute. The reactions of passers-by were filmed. As a result, it turned out that while 4% of passers-by joined the stimulus group consisting of one person, 40% of passers-by joined the stimulus group consisting of 15 people. Thus, the size of the stimulus group had a significant impact on the number of people who stopped and looked at the window of the house. Milgram concluded that the attractive power of a crowd depends on:

1) the number of people in the crowd, and the number is not necessarily constant, it increases with each passing passerby who stops;

2) the nature of the stimulus event: the more interesting the event, the faster the crowd size grows.

This study is a concrete embodiment of Milgram's quantitative approach to the study of crowds and lies in line with the American paradigm of social psychology.

So, American psychologists experimentally found some quantitative patterns mass behavior of people and revealed a number of socio-psychological effects.

Last update: 08/12/2018

The dangers of obedience - that's what Stanley Milgram called his experiment. And obedience to authority can be very dangerous indeed, since sometimes it goes against even universal human values.

"The social psychology of this century shows us main lesson“Often a person’s actions are determined not by his characteristics, but by the situation in which he finds himself” - Stanley Milgram, 1974

If a person in a position of authority ordered you to give another person a 400-volt electric shock, would you agree to do so? Most people will answer such a question with an adamant “no.” But Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experimental studies on obedience in the 1960s that showed surprising results.

Background to the Milgram experiment

Milgram began conducting his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann began. “How could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were simply carrying out tasks? Were they all accomplices? - Milgram posed this question in his report “Obedience to Authority.”

Milgram experiment technique

The participants in the experiment were forty men who were recruited from newspaper advertisements. They were each offered a payment of $4.50.
Milgram developed a very realistic and frightening-looking generator equipped with 15 V division buttons. The voltage started at 30 V and ended at 450 V. Most of the switches were labeled “minor shock,” “moderate shock,” and “danger: severe shock.” The final couple of buttons were simply labeled with the ominous “XXX.”

The participants were divided by “lot” into “teachers” and “students”; during the experiment they were separated by a wall. The “teacher” had to shock the “student” every time he said the wrong answer. While the participant assumed that he was actually shocking the “student,” no shocks actually occurred, and the “student” was actually an ally of the experiment, feigning shock.

During the experiment, the participant heard the “student’s” pleas for mercy, requests to be released, and complaints about sick heart. As soon as the current level reached 300 volts, the “student” desperately banged on the wall and demanded release. After which he became quiet and stopped answering questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and press the next button to receive the shock.

Most of the participants asked the experimenter if they should continue? But the experimenter gave them a series of commands requiring action:

• "Please continue";
• “The experiment requires you to continue”;
• “It is absolutely necessary that you continue”;
• “You have no other choice, you must continue.”

Results of Milgram's experiment

The level of electrical voltage that the participant was willing to deliver was used as a measure of obedience.
How far do you think most of the participants went?

When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, they guessed that no more than three out of a hundred participants would give the maximum shock. In fact, 65% of participants gave the maximum.

Of the 40 participants in the experiment, 26 delivered the maximum shock level, and only 14 stopped before. It is important to note that many subjects became extremely anxious, agitated, and angry with the experimenter. Milgram later clarified that 84% were happy about their participation, and only 1% regretted participating in the experiment.

Discussion of the Milgram experiment

While Milgram's research raised serious questions about the ethics of using human subjects in this type of psychological experiment, its results remained consistent throughout subsequent research. Thomas Blass (1999) continued experiments of this kind and found that Milgram's results persisted.

Why did most participants perform sadistic acts according to authoritative instructions? According to Milgram, there are many situational factors that may explain this high level of obedience:

• the physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance;
• the fact that the study was conducted by Yale University, a reputable educational institution, led the majority of participants to believe that the experiment should be safe;
• the choice of teacher and student status seemed random;
• participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert;
• Participants were assured that electric shocks were painful but not dangerous.

Milgram's later experiments indicated that the presence of resistant participants dramatically increased levels of obedience. When other people refused to comply with the experimenter's orders, 36 of 40 participants refused to go to the maximum current level.

“Ordinary people, simply doing their job, and without much hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become clear, but they are asked to continue actions that are inconsistent with fundamental standards of ethics, few people find the strength to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram's experiment became a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment assumed that situational variables had more strong influence rather than individual factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience occurs to a greater extent under the influence of a combination of external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and personality traits.

Watch the video of Stanley Milgram's experiment “Obedience.”

Have something to say? Leave a comment!.

Stanley Milgram(Also Milgram; August 15, New York - December 20, New York) - American social psychologist, known for his experiment in submission to authority and his study of the “small world” phenomenon (an experimental rationale for the “six handshakes rule”).

Often listed as one of the most influential psychologists of the twentieth century, Milgram received his basic training in political science at Queens College in . Milgram's first attempt at graduate school at Harvard was rejected due to the absence of psychology from Milgram's list of courses, but after undergoing additional training, he was accepted and defended his dissertation in 1960.

Milgram's work was influenced by psychologists such as Solomon Asch and Gordon Allport.

In 2004, Tom Blass published a biographical book, The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Work of Stanley Milgram. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram ).

In culture

In 2009, the German post-rock band Long Distance Calling released the song “I Know you Stanley Milgram” in their album Avoid The Light.

In 2015, the film “Experimenter” was released. The film chronicles a series of radical behavioral experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961. During which the readiness of ordinary people to obey the authorities was tested.

Write a review of the article "Milgram, Stanley"

Notes

See also

Excerpt characterizing Milgram, Stanley

What lengths can a respectable citizen go to when obeying an order? Reflections on the tens of thousands of people in Nazi Germany who sent their own kind to their deaths simply by doing their duty gave Stanley Milgram the idea of ​​a provocative experiment. The behavior of the subjects during different variations of the experiment invariably confirmed Milgram’s dire guesses: some test participants severely “punished” others without using their right to refuse. The paradox is that the virtues we value so much in people, such as loyalty, discipline and self-sacrifice, bind people to the most inhumane systems of power. But since the time Nazi camps After death, human nature did not change. That is why the relevance of the concept, which is confirmed with terrible convincingness by experiment, can be disputed, but dangerously underestimated. Famous experiment Milgram's research, which initially provoked protest and mistrust among many, was later recognized as one of the most morally significant studies in psychology.

Milgram's experiment is widely cited. I came across at least 10 links. In particular, Philip Zimbardo. , Tom Butler-Bowdon. , Mikael Krogerus. , Luis Ferrante. .

Stanley Milgram. Submission to authority: Scientific view on power and morality. – M.: Alpina Non-fiction, 2016. – 282 p.

Download abstract ( summary) in the format or

Chapter 1. The Dilemma of Subordination

Submission is one of basic elements in the structure social life. Certain systems of power are an indisputable requirement of all human interactions. The genocide of European Jews is an extreme case of murder committed by thousands of people under the slogan of subjugation. However, on a smaller scale, this happens all the time. The moral question of whether one can disobey an order if it contradicts one's conscience was discussed by Plato, portrayed in Antigone, and thought about by philosophers of all times. According to conservative authors, disobedience threatens the very foundations of society, and even if the act pushed by authority turns out to be evil, it is better to obey than to encroach on its prerogatives. And here is Hobbes's idea: responsibility in such a case is not borne by the performer, but by the one who gave the order. However, humanists reasoned differently: personal conscience has priority, and if its voice contradicts the order, one must proceed from it.

To explore the act of submission, I conducted a simple experiment at Yale University. A psychology laboratory recruits two people to participate in a study of memory and learning. One is called “teacher”, the other “student”. The experimenter reports that we're talking about about the impact of punishment on learning. The “student” is escorted into a room, seated in a chair and fastened with belts so that he does not twitch, and an electrode is attached to his wrist. He is informed that he must memorize lists of pairs of words, and in case of mistakes he will receive electric shocks of increasing intensity.

In fact, the experiment is being carried out on the “teacher”. He is allowed to see how the “student” is strapped into a chair, taken to the main experimental room and seated in front of a terrifying electric generator. On the front panel of the generator there are 30 switches located horizontally from 15 volts to 450 volts, in 15 volt increments. Next to the switches, verbal explanations are given: from “Weak discharge” to “Danger - severe damage.”

The “teacher” is informed that he will be checking the person in the next room. If the “student” answers correctly, the “teacher” moves on to the next item. In case of an incorrect answer, it is necessary to perform an electric shock: start with the smallest (15 volts), then increase by one step each time the “student” makes a mistake (30 volts, 45 volts, etc.).

“Teacher” is an ignorant subject who came to the laboratory to participate in an experiment. The “apprentice” is a figurehead who in reality does not receive electric shocks. The purpose of the experiment is to find out how far a person will go in specific situation, obediently inflicting pain on the protesting victim. At what point will he refuse to obey?

Many listen to the experimenter, no matter how desperately the “student” complains, no matter how painful the blows seem and how ardently the “student” begs to be released. This was observed again and again in our studies, and in other universities where the experiment was repeated. It is the incredible readiness of adults to obey almost to the last that constitutes the main discovery made in the course of our experience. And it is she who most of all needs explanation.

Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) comes to mind. According to Arendt, the prosecutor's attempts to portray Eichmann as a bloodthirsty monster were deeply flawed: he was just an ordinary bureaucrat who sat behind a desk and worked.

The main lesson of our research: the most ordinary people, simply doing their job and not having any hostile intentions, are capable of becoming an instrument of a terrible destructive force. Influence moral sense on actions is less significant than the social myth says. Although commandments like “thou shalt not kill” occupy a prominent place in the list of moral norms, in the structure human psyche their position is not so secure.

So why does a person obey the experimenter? Firstly, there are a number of “connecting factors” that make it difficult to get out of the situation. There is politeness, the initial promise to help, and the awkwardness of refusal. Secondly, the subject develops a number of adaptive mechanisms that inhibit his determination to fight back. These adaptive reactions help the subject maintain the relationship with the experimenter while reducing internal conflict. They are typical of the thinking of obedient people when they are told by authority to harm helpless persons.

Many subjects belittled the victim as a result of actions against her. I often heard: “He was so stupid and stubborn, it served him right.”

The problem of submission cannot be considered purely psychological. In many respects it is connected with the form of society and the path along which it develops. There may have been times when people were able to respond humanely to any situation because they were completely absorbed in it. However, with the division of labor everything went differently. Beginning at some point, the fragmentation of society into people performing narrow and very specific tasks depersonalized work and life. Everyone sees not the situation as a whole, but only a small part of it, and therefore is not able to act without guidance. A person submits to authority, but thereby becomes alienated from his own actions.

Chapter 3. Expected Behavior

In the social sciences, the importance of research is too often belittled on the pretext that the conclusions are obviously obvious. However, we rarely have accurate information about exactly what behavior is expected of people in certain circumstances. If such information is obtained, then it can be compared with the results of the study. Thus, we will have a criterion to determine whether we learned a lot or little from the experiment. Moreover, if the result differs from expectations, it is interesting to think about what is causing the discrepancy. After all, if expectations turn out to be illusory, it is appropriate to ask the question: does this illusion speak of ignorance or does it fulfill some kind of specific function in social life?

Setting expectations is easy. In each case, the respondents are people who came to hear a lecture about submission to authority. The experiment is described in detail, but the results are not disclosed. The audience is given a schematic diagram of a generator with the strength of the electric shock indicated. Each respondent is asked to think about the experiment, then privately report how he or she would behave in the subject's place. Predictions were made by three groups: psychiatrists, students and adults from the middle class and various professions (Fig. 1).

According to these people, their actions would be dictated by empathy, compassion and justice. Like, it’s clear how to behave, and since it’s clear, it’s easy to do. However, they are poorly aware of how multifaceted factors are involved in a real social situation. Let us assume that such a formulation of the question is unlawful. After all, everyone sees themselves in better light. To eliminate the subjectivity associated with vanity, we came up with another question: how would other people behave? The results were strikingly similar.

What assumptions underlay the forecasts? People are generally decent and do not easily hurt innocent beings. If a person is not physically forced or intimidated, he is, as a rule, the master of his behavior. He does certain things because he does so himself. decided. When people were asked to think about our obedience experiment, they usually started with similar premises. They emphasized the character of the autonomous individual, and not the situation in which he finds himself. That's why they thought that almost no one would obey the experimenter's instructions.

Chapter 4. Close proximity of the victim

Unlike the forecast, in real experiment the percentage of obedient subjects was significantly higher (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Results of the first series of experiments: exp. 1 – the “teacher” does not see or hear the “student; exp. 2 – “teacher” hears “student”; exp. 3 – “teacher” and “student” are in the same room; exp. 4 – “teacher” holds the “student’s” hand.

How can we explain the decrease in obedience when the victim is close? Several factors may be at work here: empathy; denial and narrowing of the cognitive field (the isolation condition allows for a narrowing of the cognitive field in such a way that one does not have to think about the victim. When the victim is close, it is more difficult to forget about him); mutual fields (with close proximity, the subject sees the victim better, but the opposite is also true: it is also easier to follow him).

Chapter 6. Further variations and observations

In one of the experiments, the leader gave initial instructions, after which he left the laboratory, and then communicated only by phone. When the experimenter was not in the laboratory, compliance dropped sharply. This series of experiments showed that the physical presence of authority - important fact or, on which submission or disobedience largely depends. Obedience to inhumane instructions is partly due to direct contact between the authority and the subject. Any theory of subordination must take this into account.

In another series of experiments, we used women as subjects. On the one hand, in most compliance tests, women were more compliant than men. Thus, we would expect them to demonstrate greater compliance in our experiment. On the other hand, women are believed to be less aggressive than men and more prone to empathy. This may have increased their resistance to orders to shock the victim. The level of subordination was almost the same as that of men.

Whatever the reasons that forced the subjects to take electric shocks to the maximum, the point is not in the initial aggression, but in the transformation of behavior due to obedience to orders.

Chapter 8. Role reversals

It is not clear from previous experiments whether the subject reacts mainly to the content of the order or to the status of the orderer? Are the subject’s actions determined to a greater extent by What it is said, or that Who speaks? Until now, the experimenter had always told the subject to continue, and the "student" had objected. In the first role reshuffle, we did the opposite. The “student” will demand an electric shock, and the experimenter will object (Fig. 3). This was done as follows. Receiving an electric shock, the “student” screamed in pain, but did not object to the experiment at all. After a discharge of 150 volts, the experimenter declared the experiment over. The “student” shouted that he wanted to continue: they say, his friend went through this, and it would be a shame for him to quit the race. The experimenter replied that to carry out the experiment completely would be useful for science, but further blows were excluded.

Not a single participant obeyed the demands of the “student”. Everyone obeyed the experimenter and stopped hitting. The subjects are ready to perform shocks at the request of the experimenter, but not at the request of the “student”. It turns out that the “student” has less rights over himself than the authority has over him. The “disciple” is only part of the overall system, which is controlled by authority. It is not the essence of the order that is decisive, but where it comes from.

In the next experiment, the instructions did not come from the experimenter, but from an ordinary person. Observed sharp decline obedience: 16 out of 20 subjects refused to obey an ordinary person, although he insisted on continuing the experiment and poured out convincing arguments.

When the subject refused to obey an ordinary person, a new situation arose. The accomplice, allegedly unhappy with the refusal, stated that since his partner did not dare to strike, he would do it personally. He asked the subject to time the experiment, and he sat down at the generator. Thus, the subject was relieved of personal responsibility for electric shocks, but became a witness to a difficult scene in which the aggressive partner carried out his plan to successively increase the level of electric shock. Almost all of the 16 participants objected, and five offered physical resistance, putting an end to the execution.

This contrasts sharply with the deferential politeness that subjects showed in experiments where authority was at the helm. The subjects treated authority with courtesy and respect, even in cases where they did not obey.

In another experiment, the authority acted as the victim. At the first protest from the experimenter, all subjects refused to go further and even give one additional shock. Not one behaved differently. Moreover, many subjects rushed to the rescue of the experimenter: they ran to next room free him. They often expressed sympathy for him, but remained cold towards an ordinary person who was considered crazy.

These experiments confirm that the decisive factor is the reaction to authority, and not to the order to use electric shock. Orders that do not come from authority lose all force. Those who are trying to prove that it is all about the aggressive and sadistic instincts that come to the surface when a person gets the opportunity to inflict pain on his own kind must take into account the categorical refusal of the subjects to continue the experiments. The point is not what the subjects do, but for whom they do it for.

Until now the main conflict has been between an ordinary person and authority. What if the conflict arises within the authorities? Perhaps, in a situation where one authority demands one thing, and another demands the diametrically opposite, a person’s own values ​​begin to play a role, and they determine his choice? The result upset our expectations. The experimenters looked like two bosses, equally convinced that they are right. However, they did not argue with each other, but addressed the subject. Thus, he found himself faced with mutually exclusive, but equally authoritative, orders (Fig. 4).

The result of the experiment speaks for itself. Of the 20 participants, one withdrew before there was a disagreement between scientists, and 18 - at the moment when a contradiction arose between the authorities. Another one went a step further. It is obvious that the disagreement between the authorities completely paralyzed the action. No subject took advantage of the order to continue. Not once has individual aggressive motives led anyone to seize upon an authoritative sanction given by a malevolent authority. On the contrary, the experience has stalled.

In the next version of the experiment, the subject deals with two experimenters who are similar in appearance and appear to have the same authority. However, while the two experimenters and the subject are waiting for the fourth participant, the phone rings. It turns out that the fourth participant will not come. The experimenters are upset because they have to finish the experiment that evening. The idea arises to distribute necessary roles between the three present is not exactly what is needed, but the minimum number of participants is ensured. The second experimenter becomes the “student.” He behaves like an ordinary victim: after a shock of 150 volts, he screams that he’s had enough and wants to get out. An amazing thing, an experimenter tied to " electric chair”, is valued no more than an ordinary victim, who has no authority at all. 13 out of 20 subjects reached 450 Volts.

Why does one of the experimenters completely lose authority? Subjects tend to perceive clear hierarchies, devoid of contradictions and incompatible elements. Therefore, they try in every possible way to identify the highest power and respond specifically to it. In relation to our case:

• One of the experimenters voluntarily took on the role of the victim. Thus, he temporarily lost his leadership status, giving it to another experimenter.
• Authority is not just rank, but the possession of a certain place in a socially defined situation. The king, once in prison, discovers that they have stopped listening to him. The ex-experimenter finds himself in the physical situation of the victim and confronts the authority seated on the throne of the commander-in-chief.

Chapter 9. Group Effects

It is difficult to resist authority alone. However, the group has power. Here we need to draw a line between the concepts subordination And conformity. Conformity can be understood very broadly, but here it is advisable to talk about the actions of the subject when he agrees with his equal, with people of his status who have no special right to guide his behavior. We will call submission the actions of the subject when he follows the lead of authority. Take, for example, a new recruit in the army. He carefully follows all orders from his superiors. At the same time, he perceives the habits, routines and language of other recruits. In the first case there is subordination, in the second there is conformity.

Solomon Asch conducted a series of brilliant experiments on conformity (1951). A group of six people, in which all but one were dummies, were shown a line of a certain length and then asked which of three other lines matched it in length. The dummies were trained to give incorrect answers every time (or on a specified number of occasions). The naive subject was positioned in such a way that he heard the answers of most of the group members before voicing his own answer. Asch found that under such social pressure, a large percentage of subjects preferred to agree with the group rather than believe their own eyes.

Asch's subjects showed conformity to the group. In our study, the subjects showed subordination towards the experimenter. In both cases, there was a refusal of initiative in favor of external source. Conformity makes behavior homogeneous: the person under influence perceives the behavior of the group. With conformity, a person insists that the group did not make him less independent, while with subordination he says that he had no autonomy at all, and that everything depended on authority.

What explains this? The point is that conformity is a reaction to implicit pressure (internal, implicit): the subject considers his behavior voluntary. He cannot come up with a sound reason why it would be worth following the lead of the group members, so he denies that conformity took place at all. He does not want to admit this not only to the experimenter, but even to himself. In the case of submission, the opposite is true. The situation is publicly defined as involuntary: it is explicitly stated (openly, explicitly) that submission is expected from the subject. When explaining his actions, the subject refers precisely to this public definition of the situation.

Let us consider to what extent the influence of a group can free the subject from authoritarian control and allow him to follow own values and life guidelines. To do this, we modify the basic experiment: we will place the subject between two others similar to him, who will fight back the experimenter and refuse to punish the victim against her will (Fig. 5). To what extent will the pressure created by their actions change the actions of the naive subject?

The laboratory includes four people who are ready to participate in an experiment to study the “impact collective learning and punishments on memory and learning ability.” Three of them are dummies, and one is a naive test subject. Through a rigged lottery, the naive subject receives the role of “teacher-3.” The roles of “teacher-1”, “teacher-2” and “student” are dummies. The “student” is strapped to the “electric chair”, and three “teachers” sit at the current generator. “Teacher-1” must read pairs of words, “teacher-2” must indicate whether the answer is correct, and “teacher-3” (a naive subject) must give punishment.

The dummies obey the experimenter's orders until the first heated protests of the victim (after a shock of 150 volts). At this point, Teacher 1 tells the experimenter that she does not want to participate anymore because the victim is complaining. The experimenter replies that we must continue. However, “teacher-1” does not obey the order, gets up from his chair and moves to another part of the room. Since the experimenter's attempts to return the subject to the generator remain futile, the experimenter orders the other two participants to continue the experiment. “Teacher-3” (a naive subject) must now not only give the “student” electric shocks, but also read out the words.

After level 14 (210 volts), “teacher-2” expresses concern for the “student” and refuses to participate. With this balance of power, 36 out of 40 subjects said “no” to the experimenter (while the corresponding figure in the absence of group pressure was 14). It turns out that the group’s resistance very successfully undermines the authority of the experimenter. Moreover, of all the experimental variations we studied, in no case did the experimenter receive such a decisive rebuff as with this manipulation. Mutual support is the strongest bulwark against abuse of power.

Authority holders are well aware of the importance of groups and often use them to establish submission. This ability is demonstrated by a simple modification of our experiment. Here you need to consider the following. As soon as any force or something happens between the subject and the consequences of electric shocks, any factor that contributes to the distance between the subject and the victim reduces the pressure on the participant, and therefore reduces insubordination.

To study this phenomenon in the laboratory, we came up with a variation of the experiment in which the shocks were administered not by a naive subject, but by his partner (a dummy). The naive subject performs auxiliary actions, which, although they advance the experiment, are not associated with the direct switching of the switch on the generator. New role the test subject turned out to be easy. Only three out of 40 refused to participate in the experiment to the end. The rest played a decorative role in delivering blows and were not psychologically involved to such an extent that internal conflict led to insubordination.

In a destructive bureaucratic system, a smart manager is able to select personnel in such a way that violence as such is committed only by the most heartless and stupid people. The bulk of the staff may be men and women who, due to their distance from acts of cruelty, feel almost no internal conflict while performing their auxiliary work. They are freed from a sense of responsibility for two reasons. First, they carry out the orders of a legitimate authority. Secondly, no physical influences they don't commit.

Chapter 10. What causes submission? Analysis

Obedience to authority is a very powerful and dominant state in humans. Why? Hierarchically organized groups enable their members to better repel danger physical environment and threats from competing species, as well as prevent intra-group destructive processes.

This is a view from a position evolutionary theory: behavior, like other human characteristics, has been shaped by the need for survival for thousands of years. Social organization provides advantages in the implementation of not only external, but also internal goals. It ensures stability and harmony in relationships between group members. Clearly defining everyone's status reduces disagreements to a minimum. Conversely, protests against hierarchy often provoke violence. Thus, a stable social organization both enhances a group's ability to deal with its environment and, by regulating group relationships, reduces internal violence.

IN social organization one cannot do without submission. And since organization is extremely important for the survival of any species, in the course of long evolutionary processes, humans have developed the corresponding ability. Scientists now believe it's more complicated than that: we are born with a potential for obedience, which then interacts with social influences to create an obedient person. In this sense, the ability to obey is akin to the ability to language: for the ability to language, the brain must be arranged in a certain way; however, for a person to talk, influence is necessary social environment. In explaining the causes of conformity, we must consider both innate structures and social influences that arise after birth. The extent to which each of these factors influences is debatable. From the point of view of evolutionary survival, all that matters is that we end up with organisms that function in hierarchies.

Evolution has made it so that when an individual acts independently, conscience plays a big role. But when he acts as part general structure, directives coming from more high level, are not subject to internal moral criticism.

Variation, as evolutionary theorists have long explained to us, has enormous biological significance. And it is very typical for people. People are not alike, so in order to benefit from hierarchical structuring, mechanisms for effective suppression are needed local control at the level of entry into the hierarchy. Then the least efficient unit will not block the performance of the system as a whole.

When individuals enter a situation of hierarchical control, the mechanism that normally regulates individual impulses is suppressed and gives way to a higher-level component. Why is this happening? Main reason associated not with individual, but with organizational needs. Hierarchical structures can function only if they have the quality of coherence. And coherence is achieved only by suppressing control at the local level.

This analysis helps us understand what changes occur when an independent unit becomes part of a system. This transformation is absolutely consistent with the central dilemma of our experiment: how is it that a worthy and polite person begins to behave cruelly towards another during the experiment? But the fact is that conscience, which regulates impulsive aggressive actions, is forced to decrease at the moment of inclusion in the hierarchical structure.

A person who enters a system based on authority no longer believes that his actions are determined by his own goals: He begins to view himself as an instrument of the desires of another person. A changed approach creates a different state in a person. I call it the agentic state.

Chapter 11. The process of submission: analysis of the experiment

What factors shaped man's basic orientation in the social world and laid the foundation for conformity? Family. The subject grew up among structures of authority. Institutional context. As soon as a child emerges from the cocoon of the family, he moves into an institutional system built on authority, the school. Rewards. When dealing with authority, a person is faced with a reward system: obedience is usually rewarded, and disobedience is most often punished. Perception of authority or the perception of the legitimacy of power. The test subject in the laboratory finds himself in a situation with the expectation that someone will be responsible for it. And as soon as he meets the experimenter, the latter fills this niche. The second condition that provokes the transition to an agentic state is that a person must consider himself part of the system. An even more important fact: the subjects entered into the domain of authority voluntarily. Psychologically, voluntariness creates a sense of duty and responsibility, which then prevents the subject from interrupting his participation. There must also be a reasonable connection between the function of the leader and the nature of his orders. Once in an agentic state, a person ceases to be himself. He acquires qualities that are not usually characteristic of him.

The most serious consequence of the agentic state is that a person feels responsible to authority, but does not feel responsible for the nature of the actions performed as directed from above. Morality does not disappear, but only takes on a different direction: the subordinate experiences shame or pride depending on how accurately he followed the orders of the authority.

This type of morality is denoted by different words: loyalty, duty, discipline... All of them are full of moral meaning and indicate the degree to which a person fulfills his duties to authority. These concepts do not speak about how “good” a person is, but about how successfully he, as a subordinate, plays his socially assigned role.

What psychological obstacles must the subject break through in order to leave his place at the generator and take a pose of insubordination?

To refuse participation, the subject must violate a number of implicit agreements that form part of the situation. After all, initially he promised to help the experimenter and thereby took on a certain responsibility. Once the situation has been determined and agreed upon by the participants, further objections are inappropriate. Moreover, a violation of the accepted definition by one of the participants has the nature of a moral offense. The subject is afraid that if he does not obey, his behavior will seem arrogant, inappropriate and rude.

The fears experienced by the subject are usually related to the future: the person is afraid of the unknown. Such vague fears are called anxiety. What is the source of anxiety? It stems from long history individual socialization. Transforming from a biological being into a civilized person, a person learned the basic norms of social life. The most basic of norms is respect for authority. The emotional manifestations we observed in the laboratory - trembling, anxious laughter, severe embarrassment - are evidence of violation of the rules. When the subject becomes aware of this conflict, anxiety arises in him, signaling him to refrain from the forbidden action.

Chapter 12. Tension and insubordination

Tension can arise whenever a unit capable of functioning autonomously is inserted into a hierarchy. Any complex entity capable of functioning both autonomously and within hierarchical systems must have mechanisms to relieve tension: otherwise, rapid collapse is inevitable. The presence of voltage y draws our attention to one of the most important aspects experiment: for some subjects the transition to an agentic state is partial.

If the inclusion of the individual in the system of authority were complete, he would carry out commands - even the most cruel - without the slightest tension. Every sign of internal conflict is evidence of the inability of authority to completely bring the subject into an agentic state.

Anything that psychologically weakens the feeling of connection between the actions of the subjects and the consequences of these actions, also reduces the level of tension, is a buffer. Technology has provided man with the means of destruction with long distance, but evolution did not have the ability to create inhibitors against these remote forms aggression, matched by those numerous and powerful inhibitors that act in face-to-face confrontations.

Disobedience is a last resort to relieve tension. However, not everyone can handle it. As soon as tension appears, psychological mechanisms begin to operate that reduce its strength. This is not surprising, given the intellectual flexibility human brain and its ability to reduce stress through cognitive adaptations.

Avoidance- the most primitive of such mechanisms: the subject isolates himself from the sensory consequences of his actions. Negation reduces internal conflict through a different intellectual mechanism: facts are rejected in the name of a more comforting interpretation of events. Potentially more significant tricks, with the help of which subjects sometimes try to alleviate the situation of the “student”: for example, they hint at the correct answer, highlighting the desired word with intonation.

If tension is great enough, it leads to insubordination, but it first creates dissent. However, disagreement has a dual and contradictory function. On the one hand, it may be the first step in an ever-increasing divergence between the subject and the experimenter. On the other hand, paradoxically, it can relieve tension, allowing the subject to “let off steam” without changing the general direction. All these mechanisms serve common goal: by reducing internal conflict to a tolerable level, they keep the relationship between the subject and the authority intact.

Internal doubt, externalization of doubt, disagreement, threat, insubordination: this not an easy path, which only a minority of subjects are able to complete. And this is not a negative conclusion, but a positive action, consciously swimming against the current. But compliance has a passive connotation. The act of insubordination requires the mobilization of internal resources and the willingness to move from doubts and polite objections to action. However, the psychological cost is enormous.

Chapter 13. Alternative theory: the answer is in aggression?

My explanation of the behavior observed in the laboratory seems to me the most convincing. An alternative concept says that it's all about aggression: the subjects had the opportunity to give vent to their destructive tendencies. In my opinion, she is wrong.

We call aggression an impulse or action aimed at causing harm to another organism. The experiment creates a situation in which it is socially acceptable to harm another person. Thus, at the level of consciousness, the individual believes that he is doing something useful for society. The real motive is different: by inflicting electric shocks on the “student”, a person realizes the destructive inclinations that live in him at the level of instincts.

However, the behavior of the participants in our experiment has nothing to do with it. Let us remember that when the subjects were given the opportunity to independently choose the level of electrical voltage, the scientist emphasized in every possible way that they could choose any level. Thus, the subjects had a free hand. Nevertheless, almost all of them limited themselves to the weakest categories. If destructive impulses really sought a way out, and the subjects had the opportunity to justify sadism in the interests of science, why did they not cause suffering to the victim?

Chapter 14. Problems of the method

Some authors are trying to prove that a psychological experiment is a unique event and global conclusions should not be drawn from it. But any social situation is unique in its own way, and the scientist’s task is to find principles that unite such different phenomena. A psychological experiment has the same structural features, as in other situations where there is a subordinate and a manager. In all these situations, a person reacts not so much to the content of demands, but rather proceeds from the relationship with their source. Moreover, if the source of the command is a legitimate authority, the relationship outweighs the content. This is what we mean when we talk about the importance of social structure, and this is what our experiment demonstrates.

Chapter 15. Epilogue

The dilemma arising from the conflict between conscience and authority is rooted in the very nature of society, and it would be with us even if Nazi Germany never existed. And to treat this problem as if it were only about the Nazis is to lose sight of its relevance.

Democracies have general elections. But once elected, people have no less power than those who came to office by other means. And as we have already seen, the demands of a democratically elected government can also conflict with conscience. The importation and enslavement of millions of Africans, the extermination of Indians, the internment of the Japanese, the use of napalm against civilians in Vietnam - all these atrocities were obediently committed at the behest of democratic authorities. Of course, in each case there were people who protested, but most ordinary citizens followed the commands.

But how can a decent person in a few months reach the point of killing his own kind without a twinge of conscience? First of all, a person moves from a position outside the system to a position inside it. The hours spent on the parade ground are not needed at all to give drill training. The goal is completely different: to discipline the individual and give a visible form to his inclusion in the structure. Columns and platoons march as one man, obeying the commands of the sergeant. Such formations consist not of people, but of automata. Army training is aimed at bringing the infantryman into just such a state, eliminating all traces of ego and gradually achieving his internalization of the military authorities.

Before sending soldiers to military zone The authorities are trying in every possible way to correlate military actions with the ideals and values ​​of society. The recruits are informed that they will be opposed in battle by enemies of the people who must be killed - otherwise the country is in danger. The situation is presented in such a way that cruel and inhumane acts seem justified (about behavior during Vietnam War cm. ).

In his article “The Dangers of Subjugation,” Harold Lasky wrote: “Unless we want to lead a completely meaningless life, we should not accept anything contrary to our basic experience simply because tradition, custom, or authority dictates it. We may well be wrong, but we will no longer be completely us if we take for granted that which diverges from our experience. That is why the condition for freedom in any state is broad and consistent skepticism towards the canons on which the authorities insist.”

Appendix I: Ethical Issues in Research

Professional psychologists actually split into two camps: some highly praised the experiment, others severely criticized it. During our experiments, I did not see any signs of mental trauma in the subjects. And since they themselves energetically supported the experiment, I decided that there was no point in stopping the research. Is the criticism due more to the surprise of the results than to the method itself? Some subjects behaved in ways that seemed shockingly immoral. But if they all limited themselves to a “weak discharge” or refused to participate at the first sign of discomfort in the “student” and the results of the experiment were pleasant and inspiring, who would protest?

After the experiment, special work was carried out with all participants. We informed them that the victim did not receive dangerous electric shocks. All subjects had a friendly meeting with the unharmed “student” and a long conversation with the experimenter. To noncompliant subjects, we explained the experiment in a way that supported their sense of rightness. Those who were obedient were assured that their behavior was absolutely normal, and that internal conflict occurred among all participants.

Since the idea of ​​punishing victims with electric shock is disgusting, when strangers hear about the idea, they are sure: “The subjects will refuse to obey.” And when the results become known, the previous belief is replaced by another: “They won’t be able to live with it.” However, both forms of denial are equally wrong. Many participants not only comply to the very end, but also do not suffer mental trauma. The main moral justification for the procedure used in my experiment was that the participants found it acceptable. Moreover, this became the main moral basis for continuing the experiments.

The fact that our experiment inspired disobedience to authority in some of its participants is, in my opinion, its great merit. As an example, I will take the testimony of a young man. “Participation in the “electric shock experience”... had a profound impact on my life. And here is military conscription. Realizing that by being drafted into the army, I thereby agree to do everything that the command orders me, I am afraid of myself. I want to become a conscientious objector, and if I am not given this status, I am ready to go to prison. In my conscience, I don’t see any other way out for myself. I only hope that the members of the draft commission will also act in accordance with their conscience..."

Inhibitor (lat. inhibere- delay) - common name substances that suppress or delay the course of physiological and physicochemical (mainly enzymatic) processes. This means that in the process of evolution, inhibitors were created in the human body that prevent aggression during personal contact.

Subordination

SUBMISSION -- (obedience) The execution by one person of the will of another in the form of carrying out the latter's orders and instructions. Unquestioning obedience implies a willingness to follow all instructions without exception.

Stanley Milgram (also Milgram; August 15, 1933, New York - December 20, 1984, New York) - American social psychologist, known for his experiment in submission to authority and his study of the “small world” phenomenon (an experimental rationale for the “rule of six handshakes”).

Milgram Experiment (Obedience)

It is a classic experiment in social psychology, first described in 1963 by psychologist Stanley Milgram of Yale University in his article “Behavioral Study of Obedience” and later in the book “Obeying Authority: experimental study"(Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, 1974).

In his experiment, Milgram tried to clarify the question: how much suffering are ordinary people willing to inflict on other, completely innocent people, if such infliction of pain is part of their job duties? It demonstrated the inability of subjects to openly resist a “boss” (in this case, a researcher wearing a lab coat) who ordered them to complete a task despite severe suffering inflicted on another participant in the experiment (in reality, a decoy).

The results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authorities is so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow instructions despite moral suffering and strong internal conflict.

In fact, Milgram began his research to clarify the question of how German citizens during the years of Nazi rule could participate in the extermination of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. After fine-tuning his experimental techniques in the United States, Milgram planned to travel with them to Germany, whose inhabitants, he believed, were highly obedient. However, after his first experiment in New Haven, Connecticut, it became clear that a trip to Germany was not necessary and that he could continue to engage in scientific research close to home. “I found so much obedience,” said Milgram, “that I do not see the need to carry out this experiment in Germany.” Subsequently, Milgram's experiment was repeated in Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Jordan, and the results were the same as in America.

Description of the experiment

This experiment was presented to participants as a study of the effects of pain on memory. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject, and an actor playing the role of another subject. It was stated that one of the participants (the “student”) should memorize pairs of words from a long list until he remembers each pair, and the other (the “teacher”) should test the memory of the first and punish him for each mistake with an increasingly stronger electric shock.

At the beginning of the experiment, the roles of teacher and student were distributed between the subject and the actor “by lot” using folded sheets of paper with the words “teacher” and “student”, and the subject always got the role of teacher. After this, the “student” was tied to a chair with electrodes. Both the “student” and the “teacher” received a “demonstration” shock of 45 V.

The “teacher” went into another room and started giving the “student” simple tasks to memorize and with each mistake of the “student” he pressed a button that supposedly punished the “student” with an electric shock. Starting with 45 V, the “teacher” with each new error had to increase the voltage by 15 V up to 450 V. In reality, the “student” did not receive blows, but only pretended to.

At “150 volts,” the “student” actor began to demand that the experiment be stopped, but the experimenter told the “teacher”: “The experiment must be continued. Please continue." As the tension increased, the actor acted out increasingly intense discomfort, then severe pain, and finally yelled for the experiment to be stopped. If the subject showed hesitation, the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for both the experiment and the safety of the “student” and that the experiment should continue. At the same time, however, the experimenter did not threaten the doubting “teachers” in any way and did not promise any reward for participating in this experiment.

Results

The results obtained amazed everyone involved in the experiment, even Milgram himself. In one series of experiments, 26 out of 40 subjects, instead of taking pity on the victim, continued to increase the voltage (up to 450 V) until the researcher gave the order to end the experiment. Even more alarming was the fact that almost none of the 40 subjects participating in the experiment refused to play the role of teacher when the “student” just began to demand release. They did not do this later either, when the victim began to beg for mercy. Moreover, even when the “student” answered every electrical discharge With a desperate cry, the “teacher” subjects continued to press the button. One subject stopped before the voltage reached 300 V, when the victim began to scream in despair: “I can’t answer any more questions!”, and those who stopped after that were in a clear minority. Overall result looked like this: one subject stopped at 300 V, five refused to obey after this level, four after 315 V, two after 330 V, one after 345 V, one after 360 V and one after 375 V; the remaining 26 out of 40 reached the end of the scale.

Discussions and speculation

A few days before the start of his experiment, Milgram asked several of his colleagues (graduate psychology students at Yale University, where the experiment was conducted) to review the research design and try to guess how many “teacher” subjects would be, no matter what, increase the discharge voltage until they are stopped (at a voltage of 450 V) by the experimenter. Most psychologists surveyed suggested that between one and two percent of all subjects would do this.

39 psychiatrists were also interviewed. They gave an even less accurate prediction, suggesting that no more than 20% of the subjects would continue the experiment to half the voltage (225 V) and only one in a thousand would increase the voltage to the limit. Consequently, no one expected the amazing results that were obtained - contrary to all forecasts, most of the subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist in charge of the experiment and punished the “student” with electric shock even after he stopped screaming and kicking the wall.

Milgram repeated the experiment, renting premises in Bridgeport, Connecticut under the banner of the Bridgeport Research Association and dispensing with any reference to Yale University. The Bridgeport Research Association presented itself as a for-profit organization. The results did not change much: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale.

The gender of the subject did not affect the results

Another experiment showed that the gender of the subject does not matter of decisive importance; The female “teachers” behaved exactly the same as the males in Milgram’s first experiment. This dispelled the myth that women are soft-hearted.

People realized the danger electric current for "student"

Another experiment examined the idea that subjects underestimated the potential physical harm, caused by them to the victim. Before starting the additional experiment, the “student” was instructed to state that he had a heart condition and would not withstand strong electric shocks. During the experiment, the “student” began to shout: “That’s it! Let me out of here! I told you that I have a bad heart. My heart is starting to bother me! I refuse to continue! Let me out! However, the behavior of the “teachers” did not change; 65% of the subjects conscientiously performed their duties, bringing the tension to the maximum.

The subjects were ordinary people

The assumption that the subjects had a disturbed psyche was also rejected as unfounded. The people who responded to Milgram's ad and expressed a desire to take part in an experiment to study the effect of punishment on memory were average citizens in terms of age, profession and educational level. Moreover, the test subjects’ answers to questions on special personality tests showed that these people were quite normal and had a fairly stable psyche. In fact, they were no different from ordinary people or, as Milgram said, “they are you and me.”

The subjects were not sadists

The assumption that subjects derived pleasure from the victim's suffering was refuted by several experiments. When the experimenter left and his “assistant” remained in the room, only 20% agreed to continue the experiment. When the subject was given the right to choose the voltage, 95% remained within 150 volts. When instructions were given over the phone, obedience decreased greatly (up to 20%). At the same time, many subjects pretended to continue the experiments. If the subject found himself in front of two researchers, one of whom ordered him to stop, and the other insisted on continuing the experiment, the subject stopped the experiment.

Additional experiments

In 2002, Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland published in Psychology Today the summary results of all repetitions of Milgram's experiment done in the United States and abroad. It turned out that from 61% to 66% reach the end of the scale, regardless of time and place.

If Milgram is right and the participants in the experiment are ordinary people like us, then the question is: “What could make people behave this way?” -- becomes personal: “What could make us act this way?” Milgram is confident that the need to obey authority is deeply ingrained in us. In his opinion, the decisive factor in the experiments he conducted was the inability of the subjects to openly resist the “boss” (in this case, the researcher dressed in a laboratory coat) who ordered the subjects to complete the task, despite the severe pain inflicted on the “student”.

Milgram makes a compelling case to support his assumption. It was obvious to him that if the researcher did not demand to continue the experiment, the subjects would quickly quit the game. They did not want to complete the task and were tormented by seeing the suffering of their victim. The subjects begged the experimenter to let them stop, and when he did not allow them to do so, they continued asking questions and pressing buttons. However, at the same time, the subjects became covered in sweat, trembled, muttered words of protest and again prayed for the release of the victim, grabbed their heads, clenched their fists so hard that their nails dug into their palms, bit their lips until they bled, and some began to laugh nervously. This is what a person who observed the experiment says.

I saw a respectable businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. In 20 minutes he was brought to nervous breakdown. He trembled, stuttered, constantly tugged at his earlobe and wrung his hands. Once he punched himself on the forehead and muttered, "Oh God, let's stop this." And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed him unconditionally

Milgram carried out several additional experiments and as a result obtained data that even more convincingly indicated the correctness of his assumption.

The subject refused to obey a person of his rank

So, in one case, he made significant changes to the script. Now the researcher told the "teacher" to stop, while the victim bravely insisted on continuing the experiment. The result speaks for itself: when only the same subject as them demanded to continue, the subjects in 100% of cases refused to give at least one additional electric shock.

In another case, the researcher and the second subject switched roles in such a way that the experimenter was tied to the chair. At the same time, the second subject ordered the “teacher” to continue, while the researcher protested violently. Again, not a single subject touched the button.

The subjects' tendency to unconditionally obey authorities was confirmed by the results of another version of the main study. This time the "teacher" was faced with two researchers, one of whom ordered the "teacher" to stop when the victim begged for release, and the other insisted on continuing the experiment. Conflicting instructions left subjects confused. Confused subjects looked from one researcher to the other, asked both leaders to act in concert and give the same commands, which could be carried out without hesitation. When the researchers continued to “quarrel” with each other, the “teachers” tried to understand which of the two was more important. Ultimately, not being able to obey authority, each “teacher” subject began to act based on his best intentions and stopped punishing the “student”.

As in other experimental designs, this result is unlikely to occur if the subjects were sadists or neurotic personalities with an increased level of aggressiveness.

Other experiment options

In other variations, one or two additional “teachers” also participated in the experiment. They were also played by actors. In the variant when the “teacher” actor insisted on continuing, only 3 out of 40 subjects stopped the experiment. In another case, two actor-“teachers” refused to continue the experiment - and 36 out of 40 subjects did the same. When instructions were given over the phone, obedience decreased greatly (up to 20%). At the same time, many subjects pretended to continue the experiments. Obedience also decreased when the “student” was near the “teacher.” In the experiment in which the “teacher” held the “student”’s hand, only 30% of the subjects reached the end. When one experimenter was a “student” and demanded to stop the experiment, and the other experimenter demanded to continue, 100% stopped. When the subject was required to give orders to the “teacher” rather than press the button himself, only 5% refused to do so.

Conclusions

According to Milgram, the findings indicate an interesting phenomenon: “This study showed an extremely strong willingness in normal adults to go who knows how far when following the instructions of an authority.” The government's ability to extract obedience from ordinary citizens now becomes clear. Authorities put a lot of pressure on us and control our behavior.