HPAVC/HPAVC CD-ROM.iso/pc/HOMEWORK.ZIP/OBEDIENC.TXT

Text File | 1998-07-25 | 9.0 KB | 107 lines

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.