Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The authors examined data generated during a replication of Milgram’s obedience studies to address some lingering questions about those studies. In Study 1, judges coded comments participants made during experimental and debriefing sessions. Participants who refused to follow the experimenter’s instructions were significantly more likely to express a sense of personal responsibility than those who followed the instructions. Participants who expressed concern for the well-being of the learner exhibited a greater reluctance to continue the procedure than did those not expressing this concern. However, whether participants expressed concern for the learner was not related to whether they ultimately continued the procedure. Study 2 looked at participants' reactions to each of the experimenter’s four prods. The further along the prod sequence the experimenter went, the less likely participants were to continue the procedure. This pattern challenges interpretations of the obedience studies based on the notion that participants were following orders.

Keywords

obedience Milgram personal responsibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandura

(1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.

Benjamin

L. T.

Jr. Simpson

J. A.

(2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 12–19.

Blass

(2000). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. In Blass

(Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm (pp. 35–59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blass

(2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Blass

(2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64, 37–45.

Brehm

J. W.

(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Burger

J. M.

(1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 303–325.

Burger

J. M.

(2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11.

Burger

J. M.

Caldwell

D. C.

(2003). The effects of monetary incentives and labeling on the foot-in-the-door effect: Evidence for a self-perception process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 235–241.

10.

Freedman

J. L.

Fraser

S. C.

(1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.

11.

Gilbert

S. J.

(1981). Another look at the Milgram obedience studies: The role of the graduated series of shocks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 690–695.

12.

Haslam

S. A.

Reicher

(2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622.

13.

Jaffe

Shapir

Yinon

(1981). Aggression and its escalation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 12, 21–36.

14.

Jaffe

Yinon

(1979). Retaliatory aggression in individuals and groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 177–186.

15.

Milgram

(1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

16.

Milgram

(1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76.

17.

Milgram

(1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

18.

Miller

A. G.

(2004). What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust? Generalizing from the social psychology laboratory. In Miller

A. G.

(Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–239). New York, NY: Guilford.

19.

Miller

A. G.

Collins

B. E.

Brief

D. E.

(Eds.). (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3).

20.

Packer

D. J.

(2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s obedience experiments: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 301–304.

21.

Pornari

C. D.

Wood

(2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 81–94.

22.

Sprinthall

N. A.

(2009). Milgram, Kohlberg, and Dostoevsky. American Psychologist, 64, 620–621.

23.

Worchel

Brehm

J. W.

(1970). Effects of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 18–22.

In Their Own Words: Explaining Obedience to Authority Through an Examination of Participants' Comments

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References