sciencetech-blog

comments

More than half a century ago, Professor Stanley Milgram ran studies into how ordinary people can do extraordinary harm to others when asked to do so.

His conclusion, which formed the basis of his research film Obedience, was that humans are programmed to obey orders, no matter how horrific.

But now, new research suggests Professor Milgram was wrong - the participants didn't act this way because they were inherently evil, instead their behaviour was influenced by the fact they believed they were contributing to science.

Scroll down for video 

During tests in 1961, Professor Stanley Milgram found ordinary people will do harm to others when following orders to do so (pictured). But now, new research suggests the findings were wrong; the participants didn't act this way because they were evil, instead they were influenced by the fact they were contributing to science

This made their actions seem more moral and worthy, and they weren't just obeying orders, they were happy to do so - and may have acted differently outside of the lab environment. 

In his experiment, which took place at Yale University in 1961, Milgram asked volunteers to give what they thought were electric shocks of increasing strength to people who were trying but failing to learn a task.

These 'students' were actors, but the volunteers believed the set-up was genuine.

In the best known variant of the study, two-thirds of people continued all the way up to the maximum 450 volt level.

The studies have aroused controversy ever since, not only for their findings but for fears about the distress inflicted on those who participated.

The research suggested that people will act in an evil way when they are obeying orders, and believe they won't be held responsible. 

This was an excuse used by Nazi soldiers during war crime trials, for example, when questioned about their behaviour during the second world war. 

However, a paper in the British Journal of Social Psychology, led by Professor Alex Haslam from the University of Queensland and Professor Kathryn Millard from Macquarie University, claims the meaning of the experiment has been widely misunderstood.

As a result of archival research by Millard - who spent several months researching in the archives at Yale - the team gained access to the feedback that 659 of the 800 volunteers provided at the end of the experiment – after they had been 'dehoaxed' by the experimenter.

In his experiment, which took place at Yale University in 1961, Milgram asked volunteers to give what they thought were electric shocks of increasing strength to people who were trying but failing to learn a task. In the best known variant of the study, two-thirds of people continued all the way up to the maximum 450 volt level

Far from being distressed by the experience, the researchers found that most volunteers said they were very happy to have participated.

Professor Haslam said: 'It appears from this feedback that the main reason participants weren't distressed is that they did not think they had done anything wrong.

'This was largely due to Milgram's ability to convince them that they had made an important contribution to science.'

'This provides new insight into the psychology of oppression and gels with other evidence that perpetrators are generally motivated, not by a desire to do evil, but by a sense that what they are doing is worthy and noble.

These new understandings will contribute to a film called Shock Room, that is now in the final stages of post-production.

The film begins where Milgram's Obedience film ended. It explores how people make the choice to obey authority - but also when they choose to disobey.

Professor Kathryn Millard said: 'Milgram's success comes down to the fact that he was a skilful dramatist as well as a psychologist.

'Shock Room breaks open the Milgram 'Obedience to Authority' paradigm and re-evaluates its conclusions.

'It tells a powerful new story about the dark side of human nature through a creative collaboration across art and science that has broad relevance for contemporary society.'