Date sent: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 00:16:47 -0700 Subject: Essay on Obedience DISCUSS BOTH THE ETHICAL & METHODOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ENCOUNTERED WHEN INVESTIGATING OBEDIENCE. When subjects are given orders or instructions to carry out by some figure of authority. The measure of obedience is the extent to which a subject is prepared to carry out orders which go against individual values and beliefs. When considering how to devise obedience studies, many factors must be taken into account concerning moral issues, along with the methods used. Due to the nature of obedience studies, both are controversial to some extent. Below some of these issues are discussed. Perhaps the most controversial experiment with regard to obedience studies is Stanley Milgram's obedience to authority, conducted in 1963. Because of the ethical controversy surrounding Milgram's experiments, it seems only natural that there would be critics and advocates. Baumrind (1964) for example, claimed that it is unacceptable to place innocent and naive subjects under great emotional distress in Milgram's quest for knowledge. To many, pressuring individual subjects to the point of uncontrollable seizures cannot be justified. How much subsequent psychological damage was sustained by some (if any) is still unknown, but Milgram defends himself on several points. He says that he expected that most would disobey sooner than they did. Why, then, did he continue to test over 2000 subjects in similar experiments, reasonably sure that the results would average out similarly in the final analysis? Re-uniting the subject 'teacher' with the unharmed learner, whilst being reassuring in the aftermath, does not excuse the traumas to which the subjects were often exposed during the experiment. Roger Brown (1986) said Milgram '...(showed) great concern for the welfare of his subjects'. Milgram himself states that in a follow-up survey almost 80% of the subjects were either glad or very glad in having participated. Rosnow (1978) claimed that this type of experiment may in fact help people to re-assess their own values and beliefs, emerging as better people. It could also be said that as more people become aware of Milgram's results, they will become more aware of a duty to question figures of authority if it goes against personal morality. Erikson (1968) believed the experiment demonstrated that it is man himself who is responsible for controlling his potentially harmful behaviour, while Etzioni (1968) praised Milgram's attempt to combine humanistic study and empirical behaviour. Milgram noted that subjects often behaved as if they were locked into the role of someone helping the experimenter with important research. They would read words and instructions with great care and clarity, and pressing buttons with great precision. One can only assume that this was some form of 'escape mechanism' for the mental stress of deliberately inflicting pain on another individual. Most subjects felt severe guilt at what they had done, and outside the laboratory afterwards they were shocked at their behaviour. There can be little doubt that Milgram's subjects were lulled into feeling 'safe' while the original experiment ran its course. Even at 315 volts, when the learner became silent, the subject was constantly reassured and led to believe that it was 'absolutely essential' to go on. The status of the authoritarian figure, in this case in a lab-coat, gives far more credence to the experiment, and Milgram himself believed that this presence was a major influencing factor. The experiment was re-conducted many times, altering the methods and the location. When instructions were issued by telephone for instance, the obedience level dropped to almost zero; subjects would pretend to press shock buttons, or reduce the voltage rather than increase it. This form of 'cheating' by the naive subjects must have caused them some degree of mental anguish both during and after the experiments. If we are to question, as many have, whether what happened to Milgram's subjects in laboratory conditions cannot be generalised to real-life situations, then we must compare it to the field study method used by Hofling et al (1966). This experiment can only be described as a 'real-life' event, as the subjects were totally unaware they were part of any experiment whatsoever, yet here we see the infringement of hospital regulations and medical ethics. It is worth noting that a similar group of nurses were given the same situation as a topic for discussion, with totally dissimilar results. This would prove the need for a practical experiment to the test a 'real' situation rather than a hypothetical one. So, Unlike Milgram and Zimbardo, Hofling used a formal no-treatment control group, but the results were contrastingly different for both groups of nurses. Within the control group, 10 of the 12 nurses said they would not have administered the drug, yet 21 of the 22 nurses in the experimental group obeyed the request. From this and other tests it can be clearly seen that without running the experiment the true results would never be known. Philip Zimbardo conducted his experiment using volunteer Guards and prisoners in the basement of Stanford University, again with surprising results. The initial experiment was planned to last for 14 days, and had to be cut short after 6 days. This was due to the unexpected and disturbing results encountered. Once more we are faced with an exercise in belittling and dehumanising, the prisoners being given numbers instead of being allowed to use their names, and of being systematically stripped, de-loused and given prison clothing to wear. Nevertheless, we see once more how people can become locked into roles from which they find it difficult to escape. Although all of these subjects were volunteers who were fully aware of the nature of the experiment, it becomes clear that given the authority, many individuals will transgress the boundaries of widely-held norms and beliefs about what is and what is not acceptable. Milgram was exploring a great deal of new ground whilst conducting these experiments, and perhaps less importance was given to the question of ethics during the period in which they were run. General and sometimes severe criticisms regarding the ethics of obedience experiments are frequently voiced. Subjects are frequently not given the freedom to question their orders to obtain more information. Although in real life, too, discussion is often limited, nor are all the facts known or to hand. If a group believes something strongly enough they may prevent its members from seeking further information. Savin (1973) argued that both Milgram's and Zimbardo's subjects were 'humiliated or maltreated', and the same could be said of Hofman's nurses. Another objection is the amount of deception involved on the part of the experimenters. In particular, Milgram must be guilty of this, and it is undoubtedly morally wrong to deceive subjects, particularly where an experiment is upsetting them. It must be remembered, however, that events in everyday life involve deception through propaganda, advertising and political bias, for example. Gross (1987) regards the charge that Milgram's subjects were atypical of the American population as unjustified, and this can be supported by comparison with similar experiments by other researchers. Milgram's research has led to others conducting similar experiments in many countries, demonstrating that what is or is not considered ethical is highly subjective and open to various interpretations. What can be considered as a social norm in one group or society may be totally unacceptable elsewhere. It seems apparent that the above situations are quite diverse on a number of points, and will therefore give inconsistent results. Of the three pieces of research discussed above, all achieved more than was initially expected of them, each with surprising results. What does not seem to have been researched in great depth is the type of personality which is more likely to show compliance or internalization (Milgram does discuss this, though not at length). Surely this must be a crucial factor which is worth far more attention? Underlying all of these criticisms is a history of man's inhumanity to man, of war criminals who have inflicted unnecessary suffering on countless millions, claiming they were 'only following orders'. Perhaps the open show of indignation displayed by many at the methods and ethics used conceals a more disturbing question; How far is each one of us prepared to obey an order? Unfortunately, there is no 'safe' middle road to tread whilst conducting this form of research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baumrind, D., (1964) Some Thoughts on the Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's Study of Obedience. (in American Psychologist, 19, p421-3). Erikson (1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis Gross, R.D., (1987) Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority. Zimbardo, P., (1988) Psychology and Life.