‘The disappearance of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority’, said Stanley Milgram once. In this article, I will compare different studies that researched authority and obedience. Studies on obedience often uncover flaws of humanity, however, it is intriguing to discover a positive side of this power and see whether it is possible to use it to improve behaviour towards a better world.
‘The disappearance of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority’, said Stanley Milgram once. In this article, I will compare different studies that researched authority and obedience. Studies on obedience often uncover flaws of humanity, however, it is intriguing to discover a positive side of this power and see whether it is possible to use it to improve behaviour towards a better world.
Photo by Ricardo Arce
Photo by Ricardo Arce
The Milgram experiment
In 1963 the social psychologist Stanley Milgram found out that the power of authority in society was stronger than he expected. In his famous study, he was able to make participants carry out orders that led to simulated injury, pain, and even death. This experiment involved the experimenter, a teacher, and a learner. The subject (who was always assigned as a teacher) was told that the aim of the experiment was to test the effect of electrical shocks on the learner’s ability to memorize word combinations (e.g. couch-flower). The subject was supposed to administer an electrical shock, which increased in voltage with every mistake (15 up until 450 volts). It is important to know that the learner was in reality an actor and not actually shocked.
The real aim of the experiment was to see how far subjects were willing to go in administering shocks until they would stop. With the increase of the voltage, the subject would hear more varying protests from the learner. The subject was torn between obeying their own morals and obeying authority. If the subject began hesitating, the experimenter used one of the four encouraging sentences, to get the subject to continue. They were arranged in intensity, from simple requests (e.g ‘please continue’) to orders (e.g. ‘you must continue’). The result showed that while 65% of participants administered the maximum level of shocks, all participants obeyed until 300 volts.
The naive subjects were fully aware of the ‘pain’ the shocks caused the learners. Moreover, Stanley Milgram observed that the subjects did not feel comfortable continuing to administer the shocks. Yet, 35 of the 40 subjects obeyed the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt level. (At this level the victim kicks on the wall and no longer provides answers to the teacher’s multiple-choice questions.) Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders until the end which is labeled 450 volts (two steps beyond the designation: Danger: Severe Shock). What made these people obey beyond their morals?
The experiment has received quite some criticism. For instance, some researchers suspected that a few of Milgram’s subjects were not convinced that real electric shocks were administered. They analysed the data from post-experiment questionnaires and found that the subjects who, at some point, refused to continue administering the electric shocks, were also more likely to have believed that the learner was suffering (Perry et al. 2020). Subjects who were less successfully convinced that the learner was in pain, however, were more obedient. So, contrary to Milgram’s conclusion, the majority of his subjects were disobedient according to this study. As a result, Sheridan and King (1972) repeated the experiment with a puppy who received real– but harmless – electric shocks. Their findings were quite similar to the Milgram experiment and they, therefore, concluded that the obedience experiment from 1963 was successfully replicated. Both successful replications and points of criticism regarding the Milgram experiment make it difficult to draw a final conclusion on how far people would actually go to obey.
“A possible explanation for this difference lies in the modified aspects of the experimental situation.”
The experiment with the nurses
In 1966 Hofling et al. conducted a study to see to what extent nurses would obey authority. They found that 21 of the 22 nurses would have given dangerous medication to patients when ordered to do so by a physician, had the experimenter not intercepted them. This instruction was transmitted over the telephone by an unfamiliar doctor. Yet, most nurses expressed no resistance to the caller or tried to delay the proceeding of the medication.
Over a decade later, in 1977 Rank and Jacobson made an attempt to replicate this study. However, they found a much lower rate of obedience. Out of 18 nurses, merely 2 nurses showed full obedience to the authority figure and prepared the medicine. The 16 nurses that did not obey, all made an attempt to check whether the order was correct.
What made the rate of obedience differ between these studies? A possible explanation for this difference lies in the modified aspects of the experimental situation. In the first study (Hofling et al. 1966) the nurses did not have information about the medicine they were asked to administer. It was a made-up drug they called ‘astroten’. As a result, the nurses were fully dependent on the physician that had the information. Moreover, in the first study, the nurses did not have the possibility to interact with other nurses in the hospital. On the contrary, the nurses in the 1977 study did. A more vulnerable position of the nurse (because they were dependent on the knowledge of the authority and because they could not approach colleagues) seems to have led to higher rates of obedience.
“The captain’s authority was said to be very strong in the cockpit”
The cockpit case study
The last example of extreme obedience to authority includes a case study of an airplane crash on December 1, 1993. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the crash was caused by the captain who did not fly the airplane appropriately, and the first officer who did not properly monitor and alert the captain of the problematic descent (Tarnow, 2000). The captain’s authority was said to be very strong in the cockpit, as five out of six first officers admitted in an interview – that took place after the plane crash – that they have been intimidated by this captain during flights. The conversation between the first officer and the captain in the flight of 1993 was recorded and showed that the captain did not fly according to the stated plan, on which the first officer did not protest. The captain remained at a high altitude too long, suggesting that the landing was going to be very steep. The first officer made a poor attempt to challenge it: ‘Just.. you just gonna stay up here as long as you can?’ Even when the plane is at a point that it is scraping the trees, the first officer obeys the questions of the captain and did not make an attempt to protest. The audio dialogue suggests a tense and almost reserved attitude toward the captain. A brief conversation follows, and then the plane crashes.
The first officer did not correct the captain on his mistakes, even though that would have been his job. It seems that this was a result of a few factors. First, the captain showed high authority by asking the first officer inappropriate questions, giving him absurd instructions, and by mocking him. In addition, the first officer was a new probationary employee who spent $8,500 to be trained for a well-paid job. This makes it less likely that the first officer would challenge the captain that could have a disadvantageous effect on his career.
“In a reversed situation, an authority figure could ask for changes in behaviour that could improve the world.”
What do these studies have in common and can these effects be turned for the better?
A few concepts can be deduced from the described studies. Dependency on the authority figure was present in both the Milgram and the nurses’ experiment, as the nurses did not have information about the medicine, and Milgram’s subjects had only the experimenter to rely on for information.
In the cockpit case study, however, the first officer was equipped with the needed information and knowledge regarding the flight and airplane and therefore did not depend on the captain. The captain did, however, have the authority to affect his career negatively.
Lastly, the concept of conformity is possibly a present factor within the process of obedience, to avoid ‘standing out’ and trusting that others show ‘correct’ and socially accepted behaviour. This idea is consistent with Rutger Bregman’s (journalist and author) view, for he believes that obedience stems from conformity and not authority. (Bregman, 2019). People’s social instinct to conform, along with camaraderie between soldiers, is an explanation for the Holocaust, according to Bregman. If conformity stems from the fear of standing out and being different, it would explain why we – in certain situations – might obey beyond our own morals.
The studies that have been described previously show negative effects and consequences of obedience. Nurses have put others in danger, people supposedly have hurt others and even an airplane has crashed. But what happens when an authority figure asks to follow certain rules that improve the world? Can the negative effects be turned for the better?
In the obedience experiments, participants seem to do exactly what an authority figure told them to do. Also, in the cockpit case study, the first officer does not question the decisions of his authority. In a reversed situation, an authority figure could ask for changes in behaviour that could improve the world. Let’s take for example environmental problems. Food waste, air pollution, and plastic pollution are a few of the biggest problems (Ritchie, 2018), and human behaviour can make a big difference. It is intriguing to research how effective authority is when it comes to changes of behaviour.
Let’s imagine an experiment that can possibly test this efficacy. An advertisement could be created. For this advertisement, an environmental expert that proves to have significantly more knowledge about environmental pollution than the average person could give a concrete intervention everyone is asked to follow. “From now on, never buy plastic bottles. Buy rather one long-lasting high-quality bottle”. Just like in the Milgram experiment and the study with the nurses from 1966, the fact that this authority figure has much more knowledge than the target group could be effective. Also, the concept of conformity can be applied. The authority figure should come across as friendly and intelligent and as a result, he could possibly be seen as a role model. Consequently, his behaviour has a higher chance of being taken over by the target group.
“we, people, can have the power to make big changes for the better – it is at least worth trying”
Lastly, it would be interesting to measure the feeling of persuasion. Three situations could be compared: In the first situation, the environmental expert would say “It is wished that you make this particular change”. In the second situation, the expert would say “It is very important for the environment that you make this particular change”. And in the third situation, the expert could say “You must make this particular change. You have no other choice”. Will the three situations differ from one another?
Undoubtedly, these ideas and the suggested experiment are merely speculations deduced from old studies. However, it would be interesting to find out whether the power of authority can have positive effects, as experiments regarding authority are often used to show negative traits of the human being. The experiments might have some questionable factors, not to mention criticism, and the question is whether it would be effective. I would say that – as we, people, can have the power to make big changes for the better – it is at least worth trying.<<
References
– Bregman, R. (2019). De meeste mensen deugen (1ste editie). de Correspondent Bv.
– Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser (2018) – “Plastic Pollution”. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution’ [Online Resource]
– Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. (1966). An experimental study in nurse-physician relationships. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 143(2), 171-180.
– Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
– Perry, G., Brannigan, A., Wanner, R. A., & Stam, H. (2020). Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 83(1), 88–106.
– Rank, S. G., & Jacobson, C. K. (1977). Hospital nurses’ compliance with medication overdose orders: a failure to replicate. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 188-193.
– Sheridan & King (1972) – Obedience to authority with an authentic victim, Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 7: 165–6″
– Tarnow, E. (2000). Towards the zero accident goal: assisting the first officer: monitor and challenge captain errors. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 10(1), 8.
The Milgram experiment
In 1963 the social psychologist Stanley Milgram found out that the power of authority in society was stronger than he expected. In his famous study, he was able to make participants carry out orders that led to simulated injury, pain, and even death. This experiment involved the experimenter, a teacher, and a learner. The subject (who was always assigned as a teacher) was told that the aim of the experiment was to test the effect of electrical shocks on the learner’s ability to memorize word combinations (e.g. couch-flower). The subject was supposed to administer an electrical shock, which increased in voltage with every mistake (15 up until 450 volts). It is important to know that the learner was in reality an actor and not actually shocked.
The real aim of the experiment was to see how far subjects were willing to go in administering shocks until they would stop. With the increase of the voltage, the subject would hear more varying protests from the learner. The subject was torn between obeying their own morals and obeying authority. If the subject began hesitating, the experimenter used one of the four encouraging sentences, to get the subject to continue. They were arranged in intensity, from simple requests (e.g ‘please continue’) to orders (e.g. ‘you must continue’). The result showed that while 65% of participants administered the maximum level of shocks, all participants obeyed until 300 volts.
The naive subjects were fully aware of the ‘pain’ the shocks caused the learners. Moreover, Stanley Milgram observed that the subjects did not feel comfortable continuing to administer the shocks. Yet, 35 of the 40 subjects obeyed the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt level. (At this level the victim kicks on the wall and no longer provides answers to the teacher’s multiple-choice questions.) Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders until the end which is labeled 450 volts (two steps beyond the designation: Danger: Severe Shock). What made these people obey beyond their morals?
The experiment has received quite some criticism. For instance, some researchers suspected that a few of Milgram’s subjects were not convinced that real electric shocks were administered. They analysed the data from post-experiment questionnaires and found that the subjects who, at some point, refused to continue administering the electric shocks, were also more likely to have believed that the learner was suffering (Perry et al. 2020). Subjects who were less successfully convinced that the learner was in pain, however, were more obedient. So, contrary to Milgram’s conclusion, the majority of his subjects were disobedient according to this study. As a result, Sheridan and King (1972) repeated the experiment with a puppy who received real– but harmless – electric shocks. Their findings were quite similar to the Milgram experiment and they, therefore, concluded that the obedience experiment from 1963 was successfully replicated. Both successful replications and points of criticism regarding the Milgram experiment make it difficult to draw a final conclusion on how far people would actually go to obey.
“A possible explanation for this difference lies in the modified aspects of the experimental situation.”
The experiment with the nurses
In 1966 Hofling et al. conducted a study to see to what extent nurses would obey authority. They found that 21 of the 22 nurses would have given dangerous medication to patients when ordered to do so by a physician, had the experimenter not intercepted them. This instruction was transmitted over the telephone by an unfamiliar doctor. Yet, most nurses expressed no resistance to the caller or tried to delay the proceeding of the medication.
Over a decade later, in 1977 Rank and Jacobson made an attempt to replicate this study. However, they found a much lower rate of obedience. Out of 18 nurses, merely 2 nurses showed full obedience to the authority figure and prepared the medicine. The 16 nurses that did not obey, all made an attempt to check whether the order was correct.
What made the rate of obedience differ between these studies? A possible explanation for this difference lies in the modified aspects of the experimental situation. In the first study (Hofling et al. 1966) the nurses did not have information about the medicine they were asked to administer. It was a made-up drug they called ‘astroten’. As a result, the nurses were fully dependent on the physician that had the information. Moreover, in the first study, the nurses did not have the possibility to interact with other nurses in the hospital. On the contrary, the nurses in the 1977 study did. A more vulnerable position of the nurse (because they were dependent on the knowledge of the authority and because they could not approach colleagues) seems to have led to higher rates of obedience.
“The captain’s authority was said to be very strong in the cockpit”
The cockpit case study
The last example of extreme obedience to authority includes a case study of an airplane crash on December 1, 1993. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the crash was caused by the captain who did not fly the airplane appropriately, and the first officer who did not properly monitor and alert the captain of the problematic descent (Tarnow, 2000). The captain’s authority was said to be very strong in the cockpit, as five out of six first officers admitted in an interview – that took place after the plane crash – that they have been intimidated by this captain during flights. The conversation between the first officer and the captain in the flight of 1993 was recorded and showed that the captain did not fly according to the stated plan, on which the first officer did not protest. The captain remained at a high altitude too long, suggesting that the landing was going to be very steep. The first officer made a poor attempt to challenge it: ‘Just.. you just gonna stay up here as long as you can?’ Even when the plane is at a point that it is scraping the trees, the first officer obeys the questions of the captain and did not make an attempt to protest. The audio dialogue suggests a tense and almost reserved attitude toward the captain. A brief conversation follows, and then the plane crashes.
The first officer did not correct the captain on his mistakes, even though that would have been his job. It seems that this was a result of a few factors. First, the captain showed high authority by asking the first officer inappropriate questions, giving him absurd instructions, and by mocking him. In addition, the first officer was a new probationary employee who spent $8,500 to be trained for a well-paid job. This makes it less likely that the first officer would challenge the captain that could have a disadvantageous effect on his career.
“In a reversed situation, an authority figure could ask for changes in behaviour that could improve the world.”
What do these studies have in common and can these effects be turned for the better?
A few concepts can be deduced from the described studies. Dependency on the authority figure was present in both the Milgram and the nurses’ experiment, as the nurses did not have information about the medicine, and Milgram’s subjects had only the experimenter to rely on for information.
In the cockpit case study, however, the first officer was equipped with the needed information and knowledge regarding the flight and airplane and therefore did not depend on the captain. The captain did, however, have the authority to affect his career negatively.
Lastly, the concept of conformity is possibly a present factor within the process of obedience, to avoid ‘standing out’ and trusting that others show ‘correct’ and socially accepted behaviour. This idea is consistent with Rutger Bregman’s (journalist and author) view, for he believes that obedience stems from conformity and not authority. (Bregman, 2019). People’s social instinct to conform, along with camaraderie between soldiers, is an explanation for the Holocaust, according to Bregman. If conformity stems from the fear of standing out and being different, it would explain why we – in certain situations – might obey beyond our own morals.
The studies that have been described previously show negative effects and consequences of obedience. Nurses have put others in danger, people supposedly have hurt others and even an airplane has crashed. But what happens when an authority figure asks to follow certain rules that improve the world? Can the negative effects be turned for the better?
In the obedience experiments, participants seem to do exactly what an authority figure told them to do. Also, in the cockpit case study, the first officer does not question the decisions of his authority. In a reversed situation, an authority figure could ask for changes in behaviour that could improve the world. Let’s take for example environmental problems. Food waste, air pollution, and plastic pollution are a few of the biggest problems (Ritchie, 2018), and human behaviour can make a big difference. It is intriguing to research how effective authority is when it comes to changes of behaviour.
Let’s imagine an experiment that can possibly test this efficacy. An advertisement could be created. For this advertisement, an environmental expert that proves to have significantly more knowledge about environmental pollution than the average person could give a concrete intervention everyone is asked to follow. “From now on, never buy plastic bottles. Buy rather one long-lasting high-quality bottle”. Just like in the Milgram experiment and the study with the nurses from 1966, the fact that this authority figure has much more knowledge than the target group could be effective. Also, the concept of conformity can be applied. The authority figure should come across as friendly and intelligent and as a result, he could possibly be seen as a role model. Consequently, his behaviour has a higher chance of being taken over by the target group.
“we, people, can have the power to make big changes for the better – it is at least worth trying”
Lastly, it would be interesting to measure the feeling of persuasion. Three situations could be compared: In the first situation, the environmental expert would say “It is wished that you make this particular change”. In the second situation, the expert would say “It is very important for the environment that you make this particular change”. And in the third situation, the expert could say “You must make this particular change. You have no other choice”. Will the three situations differ from one another?
Undoubtedly, these ideas and the suggested experiment are merely speculations deduced from old studies. However, it would be interesting to find out whether the power of authority can have positive effects, as experiments regarding authority are often used to show negative traits of the human being. The experiments might have some questionable factors, not to mention criticism, and the question is whether it would be effective. I would say that – as we, people, can have the power to make big changes for the better – it is at least worth trying.<<
