The repertoire of resistance: Non-compliance with directives in Milgram's ‘obedience’ experiments
Corresponding Author
Matthew M. Hollander
Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew M. Hollander, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA (email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Matthew M. Hollander
Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew M. Hollander, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA (email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This paper is the first extensive conversation-analytic study of resistance to directives in one of the most controversial series of experiments in social psychology, Stanley Milgram's 1961–1962 study of ‘obedience to authority’. As such, it builds bridges between interactionist and experimental areas of social psychology that do not often communicate with one another. Using as data detailed transcripts of 117 of the original sessions representing five experimental conditions, I show how research participants’ resistance to experimental progressivity takes shape against a background of directive/response and complaint/remedy conversational sequences – sequence types that project opposing and competing courses of action. In local contexts of competing sequential relevancies, participants mobilize six forms of resistance to the confederate experimenter's directives to continue. These range along a continuum of explicitness, from relatively subtle resistance that momentarily postpones continuation to techniques for explicitly trying to stop the experiment. Although both ‘obedient’- and ‘defiant’-outcome participants use all six of the forms, evidence is provided suggesting precisely how members of the two groups differ in manner and frequency of resistance.
References
- Antaki, C., & Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 876–889. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014
- Aronson, E. (2010). Not by chance alone: My life as a social psychologist. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Aronsson, K., & Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society, 22, 1–18. doi:10.1177/0957926510392124
- J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Blass, T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64, 37–45. doi:10.1037/a0014434
- Brannigan, A. (2004). The rise and fall of social psychology: The use and misuse of the experimental method. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
- Browning, C. R. (1998[1992]). Ordinary men: Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
- Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi:10.1037/a0010932
- Burger, J. M. (2014). Situational features in Milgram's experiment that kept his participants shocking. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 489–500. doi:10.1111/josi.12073
- Burger, J. M., Girgis, Z. M., & Manning, C. M. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants’ comments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 460–466. doi:10.1177/1948550610397632
- Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12, 419–442. doi:10.1177/1461445610370126
- Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41, 129–153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613
- Darley, J. M. (1995). Constructive and destructive obedience: A taxonomy of principal–agent relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 125–154. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01338.x
- Dersley, I., & Wootton, A. (2000). Complaint sequences within antagonistic argument. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 33, 375–406. doi:10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02
- P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64, 32–36. doi:10.1037/a0014473
- Frankel, R. M. (1985). Captain I was trying to bring up the fact that you made a mistake earlier: Deference and demeanor at 30,000 feet. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
- Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Gibson, S. (2013a). Milgram's obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x
- Gibson, S. (2013b). ‘The last possible resort’: A forgotten prod and the in situ standardization of Stanley Milgram's voice-feedback condition. History of Psychology, 16, 177–194. doi:10.1037/a0032430
- Gibson, S. (2014). Discourse, defiance and rationality: ‘Knowledge work’ in the ‘obedience’ experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 424–438. doi:10.1111/josi.12069
- Glenn, P. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511519888 Google Scholar
- Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370–404). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511620874.008 Google Scholar
- Goodwin, C. (2006). Retrospective and prospective orientation in the construction of argumentative moves. Text & Talk, 26, 443–461. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2006.018
- Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18, 53–73. doi:10.1177/0957926507069457
- Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
- Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26, 513–541. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
- Goodwin, M. H., & Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 122–138. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.008
- Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 9, e93927. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093927
- Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). New York, NY: Blackwell-Wiley.
- Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011a). Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance in institutional settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 216–241. doi:10.1177/0190272511408055
- Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011b). Threats: Power, family mealtimes and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 99–120. doi:10.1348/014466610X500791
- Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334. doi:10.1017/S0047404500019990
- Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196–224). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 370–394). New York, NY: Blackwell-Wiley.
- Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103
- Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35, 418–441. doi:10.2307/800595
- Jefferson, G. (2004). ‘At first I thought’: A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 131–167). Amsterdam, The Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
10.1075/pbns.125.09jef Google Scholar
- Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 152–205). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
10.21832/9781800418226-008 Google Scholar
- Kaplan, D. E. (1996). The Stanley Milgram papers: A case study on appraisal of and access to confidential data files. American Archivist, 59, 288–297.
10.17723/aarc.59.3.k3245057x1902078 Google Scholar
- Kitzinger, C., & Frith, H. (1999). Just say no? The use of conversation analysis in developing a feminist perspective on sexual refusal. Discourse & Society, 10, 293–316. doi:10.1177/0957926599010003002
- Koshik, I. (2002). A conversation analytic study of yes/no questions which convey reversed polarity assertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1851–1877. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7
- Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
- Maynard, D. W. (2013). Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 11–31). New York, NY: Blackwell-Wiley.
- Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
- Milgram, S. (Producer). (1965). Obedience (film). New York, NY: New York University Film Library.
- Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London, UK: Tavistock.
- Miller, A. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York, NY: Praeger.
- Modigliani, A., & Rochat, F. (1995). The role of interaction sequences and the timing of resistance in shaping obedience and defiance to authority. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 107–123. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01337.x
- Nevile, M. (2004). Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. London, UK: Ashgate.
- Perry, G. (2012). Beyond the shock machine: The untold story of the Milgram obedience experiments. Melbourne, Vic.: Scribe.
- Pomerantz, A. (1984). Pursuing a response. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 152–163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2010). Putting aspiration into words: ‘Laugh particles’, managing descriptive trouble and modulating action. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1543–1555. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003
- Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.
- Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone ‘so’ in ordinary conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
- Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram ‘obedience’ studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 163–169. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02015.x
- Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Smith, J. R. (2012). Working toward the experimenter: Reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 315–324. doi:10.1177/1745691612448482
- Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1995). The ordinary quality of resistance: From Milgram's laboratory to the village of Le Chambon. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 195–210. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01341.x
- Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1997). Authority: Obedience, defiance, and identification in experimental and historical contexts. In M. Gould & E. Douvan (Eds.), A new outline of social psychology (pp. 235–246). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.1037/10225-013 Google Scholar
- Russell, N. (2011). Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 140–162. doi:10.1348/014466610X492205
- Russell, N. (2014a). The emergence of Milgram's bureaucratic machine. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 409–423. doi:10.1111/josi.12068
- Russell, N. (2014b). Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority “relationship” condition: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194–214. doi:10.3390/socsci3020194
10.3390/socsci3020194 Google Scholar
- Russell, N. J. C., & Gregory, R. J. (2011). Spinning an organizational “web of obligation”? Moral choice in Stanley Milgram's “Obedience to Authority” experiments. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 495–518. doi:10.1177/0275074010384129
- Sacks, H. (1992[1964–72]). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
- Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8, 141–157. doi:10.1177/1461445606059563
- Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511791208 Google Scholar
- J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.). (2013). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York, NY: Blackwell-Wiley.
- Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45, 297–321. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
- Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 150–182. doi:10.1177/019027250606900203
- Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House.