Chapter 2 just following orders PDF

Preview

Summary

Chapter 2 just following orders...

Description

Chapter 2- Just following orders? 1.1 Early inflences  Stanley Milgram wanted to explore what makes people do evil things= dev experiment placed people in morla dilemma of choosing between doing what they were told and the right thing - Inspired by moral question from WW2 1.2 Adolf Eichmann and the banality of evil  At time of Milgrams study a trail taking place in Jerusalem of nazi leader in holocaust Adolf Eichman, Transportation administration 1942, in charge of trains carrying jews from Europe to death camps in Poland. - Captured in 1960 and guilty and hanged.  Analysis of trial by Hanna Arendt focused on how ordinary Eichmann appeared to be- bland simple and passionless man “doing his job” - Observation led Arendt (1963) “banality of evil”= evil acts do not require intrinsically evil, only need people prepared to carry out orders + obey authority. - Arendt only attended start of trial- missed that he was innovator to transport people to deaths more efficiently, gone beyond remit and continued slaughter of Jews even after ordered by superiors to stop. Also aware people considered actions wrong + failed to show remorse (Haslamn + Reicher, 2008) 2

Milgram’s obedience study

2.1 The set up  Held at psychology Department of Yale University USA 1961. Advertised in local paper asking for volunteers to take part in study of memory for fee plus expenses  Experimenter explains study involves 1 role of teacher and learner for memory task. To select who will do what role- draw slips of paper  Learner and teacher in separate rooms + communicate through microphones  Experimenter reveals study to investigate effect of punishment on learning- teacher administer electric shock on learner every time incorrect on memory test  Learner strapped into chair + experimenter tells them shocks extremely painful, no permanent tissue damage and give teacher sample of shock= unpleasant.  Experimenter sits teacher infront of shock machine. Row of 15- 450 volts increase every time incorrect answer  First phase- experimenter asks teacher to read word pairs to learner who memorises them (green grass, blue sky, nice day) Second phase- Teacher asked to read out first word of pairs and learner identifies paired word correctly. If incorrect given shock  Teacher cant see learner but can hear shock reactions- Learner asks to be realised does teacher continue?  Before study Milgram posed questions to public, college students, psychologists + psychiatrists- how far they thought most people would go when administering shocks - Refuse to give shock or not go far where learner experienced pain.  Whole situation staged- experimenter= (biology teacher), learner (playing part). Set up to ensure volunteer received teacher slip. Recording played, learner not hurt. 2.2 Results

Used 40 participants all male= all obeyed up to 300 volts- point which learning heard screaming and wanting to get out. 5 refused to continue, 4 gave 1 more shock and stopped and 5 stopped between 315-435 volts, 26 continued to end of scale  Participants displayed nervousness and tension, visibly uncomfortable + x continued had not heard experimenter say “Please continue” “Please carry on” at end of study many obedient participants signs of relief/shook heads in regret, laughing fits by anxiety  Milgram (1963, p375) wrote “full blown, uncontrollable seizures observed for 3 subjects. One occasion violently convulsive seizure necessary to call hault to experiment 2.3 The variations  After complication of research 1962, processed 800 people through 19 variations of original decision  Introduced dialogue about heart attack- wanted to see alerting participants of impact of shocks might reduce obedience - No real difference- 26/40 continued to 450 volts, but those who stopped did at lower voltage, 5 stopped as soon as learner wanted to be let out  Proximity of learner + teacher- same room, holding down learners arm - Closer teacher is to learner fewer shocks given  Experimenter pretended to leave experiment and replaced with person in plain clothes x scientist - 20% went all way. Similar results when given orders over phone  2 experimenters in room- one told participants to continue, other told them to stop - All participants stopped giving shocks early on- absence of clear authority figure  2nd teacher in room- stooge instructed to obey until the end- all participants went all way.  Conclusions= under certain conditions involving presence of authority, people suspend capacity to make informed moral judgments + defer responsibility for actions to those in authority. When people in frame of frame, nature of task asked to perform becomes irrelevant + main determinant of actions commands of authority figure. 

3

Milgrams study and ethics

3.1 Ethics  The Nuremberg Code (1946) 1. Voluntary consent of human subject absolutely essential 2. Experiement should yield fruitful results for good for society, that cannot be obtained by other means 3. Experiment should be based on previous research so anticipated results can justify research 4. Unnecessary physical and mental suffering should be avoided 5. No experiement should be conducted where reason to believe that death/disabling injury may be result 6. Degree of risk should also be less thatn potential humanitarian importance of research 7. Adequate precautions should be in place to protect subjects against any possible injury 8. Experiemtns only be conducted by qualified persons 9. Human subject always be liberty to end experiment 10. Scientist in charge should be prepared to terminate any experiment if probable cause to believe that continuation is likely to result in injury/death.

3.2 Case against Milgram

   

Dian Baumrind= “Certain probs in psychological research require experimenter to balance his career + scientific interest against interests of prospective subject (Baumrind, 1964, p 421) Challenged whether properly protected welfare of participant =detached manner of description from Milgram about of emotional turmoil from volunteers Principle of cost benefit- braumrind challenged view scientific worth of study balanced out distress caused to participants= unlikely to produce lifesaving results Braumrind- right to withdraw when told “you must go on” “you have no choice

3.3 Case for defence  Milgram dismissed accusation participants traumatised- “Relatively few subjects experienced greater tension than nail biting patron at a thriller” (quoted in Blass, 2007)  Couldn’t have known outcome before it started as even fellow professionals expected a different result  Interviews and questionnaires given to participants to check hey were all right= debriefing- Milgram ahead of ethic procedures (Blass, 2004)  Follow up surveys 1 year after to ensure no long term harm (Colman, 1987)= 84% glad to have been in experiment, 1.3% sorry to have taken part= psychiatrist checked no long term harm  Harm to participants not as great + some changed behaviour due to experiment 3.4 Judgement  Ethics committees issue guidelines + codes of conducted related to ethics in research + can reprimand researches who violate rules  Milgrams study investigated by American Psychological association=ethically acceptable but today x carried out as more restrictive guidelines 4

Obedience research after Milgram

4.1 Replications  Carry out additional research, on different populations, in different historical + social contexts + see if similar results are obtained.  Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1993) produced review of 12 of these studies + found degree of cultural variation in obedience 92-12% range - Conclusion= variety of countries will harm others on instruction of authority figure and levels of obedience explained by social contet of study + subtle differences in wording of orders by authority figure - Confirms basic Milgram findings- people x blindly obedient to authority, but respond to specific social and psychical context in which they receive orders  Don Mixon (1972) studying using role play method= people taking part acted out teacher and learner, less deception (participants knew it was role play) - Evaluating appropriateness of own behaviour, particiapnts looked to authority figure for clues - Calmess audible in experimenters response + verbal prods suggestes less of a emergency situation than appeared. Experimenter showed no cocern with screaming learner.  Charles Hofling et al (1966) carried out real life work environment- how far nurses would go in administering fatal dose of medication on demand from DR. - Bottle of dummy pills Astroten (fake drug) placed in ward medicine cabinet, bottled stated daily dose 5mg + max 10g. Nurses on duty received call from DR asking to give

-

patient 20mg as in a hurry + wants drug to be effective before saw patient + would sign drug authorisation when came onto ward in 10 mins Request borke hospital procedures= nurses only give drugs with written authorisation, not exceed max dose + only take instructions from people they knew 21/21 nurses followed instruction + prepared drug for patient. Interviewed after, some commented Dr freq phoned instructions + became annoyed if nurse protested. ½ nurses x noticed max dosage.

4.2 Recent work  Mel slater and colleagues (2006) replicated obedience study in virtual environment. Volunteers (teacher role) required to interact with female virtual character (learner) in memory test. Same electric shock procedure - One variation- teacher communicated with learner by text + couldn’t see her= all participants completed + administered all shocks - Other variation- teacher spoke to learner + could see responses= some teachers x complete procedure. showed significant sings of stress during procedure compared to text - Teacher’s response in interactive virtual encounter not all dissimilar to real person. Some teachers showed frustration when learner got answer wrong.  Jerry M Burger (2009) Argued 150 volt was key point where most participants decided whether to continue to obey= learner started to scream + asked to be released. Argued exploring how people respond allow reasonable extrapolations to be made about likely behaviour beyond this point - Burger ethical safeguards including screening volunteers + carrying out instant debriefing + obtained approval for his study - Measure of obedience in Burger (2009) study= whether teachers would go beyond 150 volts. Used same script but terminated after participants made choice at 150 volts= 12 teachers stopped, 28 continued. 5. Implications of Milgram’s work on obedience 5.1 Situation vs Personality 

-

Alan Elms, Milgrams research assistant invited 40 of Miglrams participants to return to uni to find out about their personalities + look for differnces bt those fully obedient and those defied authroirty No differences bt groups (Elms and Milgram, 1966, Elms, 1972) expect authoritarian personality F scale

5.2 Just ordinary men? 



-

Milgrams conclusion (1974, p189) “substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from ligitamte authority” Christopher Browning (1992) put forward similar argument to explain historical evidence related to activites of Reserve Police Battalion 101= german killing unit killed 40,000 polish jews during WW2. Ordinary men In Brownings book “ordinary men” he draws on Migram work to exlore how specific situation in which Battalion members were placed, expectations of them by superiors enough to make murderers.



-

Applicability of Milgrams work to Holocaust challenged by David Mandel (1998) claims suggesting obedient behave is inevitable in certain situations, provided obendience alibi to perpetrators, takes responsibility awat from indv so cant be blamed for their actions. Also argues more to obedience than obeying orders ie Major Wihelm Trapp, Commander of Reservce Police Battalion 101, received orders to carry out mass killing of jews incl women+children= told me who did not feel up to it could be assigned to other duties= 2% took up offer… based on Milgrams research more men should have taken offer= no direct command from authroirty....