Original Article
‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram's ‘obedience’ experiments
S. Alexander Haslam,
Stephen D. Reicher,
Kathryn Millard,
Rachel McDonald,
Corresponding Author
S. Alexander Haslam
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Correspondence should be addressed to S. Alexander Haslam, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia (email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorStephen D. Reicher
School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, UK
Search for more papers by this authorKathryn Millard
Department of Media, Music, Communication and Cultural Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorRachel McDonald
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Search for more papers by this author
S. Alexander Haslam,
Stephen D. Reicher,
Kathryn Millard,
Rachel McDonald,
Corresponding Author
S. Alexander Haslam
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Correspondence should be addressed to S. Alexander Haslam, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia (email: [email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorStephen D. Reicher
School of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, UK
Search for more papers by this authorKathryn Millard
Department of Media, Music, Communication and Cultural Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorRachel McDonald
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This study examines the reactions of participants in Milgram's ‘Obedience to Authority’ studies to reorient both theoretical and ethical debate. Previous discussion of these reactions has focused on whether or not participants were distressed. We provide evidence that the most salient feature of participants’ responses – and the feature most needing explanation – is not their lack of distress but their happiness at having participated. Drawing on material in Box 44 of Yale's Milgram archive we argue that this was a product of the experimenter's ability to convince participants that they were contributing to a progressive enterprise. Such evidence accords with an engaged followership model in which (1) willingness to perform unpleasant tasks is contingent upon identification with collective goals and (2) leaders cultivate identification with those goals by making them seem virtuous rather than vicious and thereby ameliorating the stress that achieving them entails. This analysis is inconsistent with Milgram's own agentic state model. Moreover, it suggests that the major ethical problem with his studies lies less in the stress that they generated for participants than in the ideologies that were promoted to ameliorate stress and justify harming others.
References
- Akerlof, G. A. (1991). Procrastination and obedience. American Economic Review, 81, 1–19.
- Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York, NY: Penguin.
- Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's “behavioral study of obedience”. American Psychologist, 19, 421–423. doi:10.1037/h0040128
- Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955–978. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x
- Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Google Scholar
- Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
- Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi:10.1037/a0010932
- 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
- Castano, E. (2008). On the perils of glorifying the ingroup: Intergroup violence, in-group glorification and moral disengagement. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 154–170. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00040.x
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00040.x Google Scholar
- Cesarani, D. (2004). Eichmann: His life and crimes. London, UK: Heinemann.
- Darley, J. M. (1992). Social organization and the production of evil. Psychological Enquiry, 2, 199–218. doi:10.1027/s15327965pli0302_28
10.1027/s15327965pli0302_28 Google Scholar
- Duggan, C. (2013). Fascist voices: An intimate history of Mussolini's Italy. London, UK: Vintage Books.
- Fox, R., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467–491. doi:10.1086/269125
- Gibson, S. (2011). Milgram's obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 290–309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x
10.1111/j.2044‐8309.2011.02070.x Google Scholar
- 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
- Gilbert, S. J. (1981). Another look at the Milgram obedience studies: The role of a graduated series of shocks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 690–695. doi:10.1177/014616728174028
- Grobmes, A., & Landen, D. (1983). Genocide: Critical issues of the Holocaust. West Orange, NJ: Berman House.
- Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (2014). Research methods and statistics in psychology ( 2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
- Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622. doi:10.1177/0146167206298570
- Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012a). When prisoners take over the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 154–179. doi:10.1177/1088868311419864
- Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012b). Contesting the “nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10, e1001426. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
- Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. (2014). Nothing by mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 473–488. doi:10.1111/josi.12072
- Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY and Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
- Helm, C., & Morelli, M. (1979). Stanley Milgram and the obedience experiment: Authority, legitimacy, and human action. Political Theory, 7, 321–346. doi:10.1177/009059177900700303
- Herf, J. (2008). Post-totalitarian narratives in Germany: Reflections on two dictatorships after 1945 and 1989. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 9, 161–186. doi:10.1080/14690760802094792
10.1080/14690760802094792 Google Scholar
- Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J. (Eds.) (2011). Rebels in groups: Dissent, deviance, difference and defiance. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Jetten, J., & Mols, F. (2014). 50-50 hindsight: Appreciating anew the contributions of Milgram's obedience experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 587–602. doi:10.1111/josi.12080
- Jones, J. M., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Williams, W. H., Morris, R., & Saroyan, S. (2011). What doesn't kill you can make you stronger (and more satisfied with life): The impact of identity on well-being after acquired brain injury. Psychology and Health, 26, 353–369. doi:10.1080/08870440903440699
- Kershaw, I. (1993). Working towards the Führer: Reflections on the nature of the Hitler dictatorship. Contemporary European History, 2, 103–108. doi:10.1017/S0960777300000382
10.1017/S0960777300000382 Google Scholar
- Lozowick, Y. (2002). Hitler's bureaucrats: The Nazi security police and the banality of evil (H. Watzman trans.). London, UK: Continuum.
- Lutsky, N. (1995). When is “obedience” obedience? Conceptual and historical commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 55–65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01334.x
- Mandel, D. R. (1998). The obedience alibi: Milgram's account of the Holocaust reconsidered. Analyse und Kritik, 20, 74–94.
10.1515/auk-1998-0105 Google Scholar
- Mantell, D. M., & Panzarella, R. (1976). Obedience and responsibility. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 239–245. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1976.tb00030.x
- Mastroianni, G. R. (2002). Milgram and the Holocaust: A reexamination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22, 158–173. doi:10.1037/h0091220
10.1037/h0091220 Google Scholar
- Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525
- Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 848–852. doi:10.1037/h0044954
- Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105
- Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
- Milgram, S. (no date a). Questionaire [sic] for subjects in memory and learning project. Milgram Archive, Yale University Library, Box 45, Folder 158.
- Milgram, S. (no date b). Report to memory project subjects. Milgram Archive, Yale University Library, Box 45, Folder 158.
- Millard, K. (2011). The window in the laboratory: Stanley Milgram as filmmaker. The Psychologist, 24, 658–660.
- Millard, K. (2014). Revisioning obedience: Exploring the role of Milgram's skills as a film-maker in bringing his shocking narrative to life. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 439–455. doi:10.1111/josi.12070
- Miller, A. (1995). Constructions of the obedience experiments: A focus upon domains of relevance. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 33–53. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01333.x
- Miller, A. G. (2004). What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust? Generalizing from the social psychology laboratory. In A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–239). New York, NY: Guilford.
- Navarick, D. J. (2009). Reviving the Milgram obedience paradigm in the era of informed consent. The Psychological Record, 59, 155–170.
- Neitzel, S. (2007). Tapping Hitler's Generals. Barnsley, UK: Frontline Books.
- Newman, L. S. (2001). The banality of secondary sources: Why social psychologists have misinterpreted Arendt's thesis. Unpublished manuscript. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
- Nicholson, I. (2011). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram's “Obedience to Authority”. Theory & Psychology, 21, 737–761. doi:10.1177/0959354311420199
- Nissani, M. (1990). A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram's observations on Obedience to Authority. American Psychologist, 45, 1384–1385. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1384
- Novick, P. (2000). The Holocaust and collective memory. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
- Overy, R. (2014). Ordinary men, extraordinary circumstances: Historians, social psychology, and the Holocaust. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 515–530. doi:10.1111/josi.12075
- Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram's obedience experiments: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 301–304. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00080.x
- Perry, G. (2011). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. Brunswick, Vic.: Scribe.
- Reicher, S. D., & 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. (2012). Obedience: Revisiting Milgram's obedience studies. In J. R. Smith & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), Social psychology: Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 106–125). London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Rath, R. (2008). Making a virtue of evil: A five-step social identity model of the development of collective hate. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1313–1344. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00113.x
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00113.x Google Scholar
- 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
- Roccas, S., Klar, Y., & Liviatan, I. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the ingroup's moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698–711. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698
- Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1997). Authority: Obedience, defiance, and identification in experimental and historical contexts. In M. Gold (Ed.), A new outline of social psychology (pp. 235–246). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.1037/10225-013 Google Scholar
- Russell, N. J. C. (2010). The making of an (in)famous experiment. The Psychologist, 23, 780–783.
- Russell, N. J. C. (2011). Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 146–162. doi:10.1348/014466610x492205
- Russell, N. J. C. (2014). The emergence of Milgram's bureaucratic machine. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 409–423. doi:10.1111/josi.12068
- 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.
- Sofsky, W. (1993). The order of terror: The concentration camp. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
- Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
- Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, UK: Yale University Press.
- Tyler, T. R. (1998). The psychology of authority relations: A relational perspective on influence and power in groups. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 251–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.4135/9781483345291.n11 Google Scholar
- Vetlesen, A. J. (2005). Evil and human agency: Understanding collective evildoing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511610776 Google Scholar
- Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: How good people turn evil. London, UK: Random House.
- Zimbardo, P., & Gerrig, R. (1999). Psychology and life ( 15th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
