Spinning an Organizational “Web of Obligation”? Moral Choice in Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience” Experiments

Abstract

Drawing on unpublished documents from his personal archive at Yale University, this article explains how social psychologist and political scientist Stanley Milgram's new baseline procedure both coerced and tempted most participants into completing his so-called Obedience to Authority (OTA) experiment. This procedure relies cumulatively on a range of manipulative and seductive psychological techniques that progressively and systematically induced most participants to pursue what they sensed to be a morally reprehensible course of action. The article examines a variety of influences at work in Milgram's controlled laboratory that help understand how functionaries may resolve an moral dilemma in a bureaucratically organized work situation. In doing so, the article also provides an alternative explanation for Milgram's new baseline findings, one that is more consistent with Bandura's concept of "moral disengagement" and Barnard's concept of an organizational "zone of indifference." It concludes that Milgram's experiments have less to do with obedience to authority per se and more to do with how people resolve moral dilemmas confronting them in a structured organizational setting.

“The last possible resort”: A forgotten prod and the in situ standardization of Stanley Milgram’s voice-feedback condition.

“…Furthermore, despite the existence of some fascinating historical scholarship on the experiments (e.g. Nicholson, 2011a, b;Russell, 2009Russell, , 2011Russell & Gregory, 2011), little research has systematically explored the wealth of audio recordings from the experiments held in the archive (for exceptions, see Modigliani & Rochat, 1995;Rochat & Modigliani, 1997). The present article draws on some of these audio recordings in order to suggest that the received view of Milgram's studies which has become crystallized over the fifty years since they were conducted may be in need of some revision.…”

The Emergence of Milgram's Bureaucratic Machine

“…Recently, Russell and Gregory () published a theory arguing that most participants who completed the baseline experiment were initially coerced but eventually tempted into inflicting every shock. More specifically, they argue the basic procedure systematically bombarded participants with a variety of what Milgram termed Strain Reducing Mechanisms (SRM) and Binding Factors (BF).…”

“…. on seduction , the systematic ensarement [ sic ] of the subject into a web of obligation and uncritically [ sic ] from which he is unable to escape” (Russell & Gregory, , p. 508). When contemplating the moral dilemma to continue or stop, some participants ended the experiment.…”

“…When contemplating the moral dilemma to continue or stop, some participants ended the experiment. Most, however, accepted what was, for themselves, the easier option to continue inflicting further shocks safe in the suspicion that they could evade blame because they were “just following orders.” Russell and Gregory () concluded that Milgram's experiments say less about so‐called obedience to authority per se, and much more about how most ordinary people can be tempted into unethically resolving a moral dilemma when they are both led to suspect they will personally benefit and can probably act unethically with impunity .…”

Authorities and Uncertainties: Applying Lessons from the Study of Jewish Resistance during the Holocaust to the Milgram Legacy

“…Conducted years after the Holocaust, Stanley Milgram's experiments were shaped in part by his desire to make sense of those tragic events (Blass, ; Milgram, , ; Miller, Collins, & Brief, ; Rochat & Modigliani, ; Russell, ; Russell & Gregory, , ). The Nazi abuses of European Jews, made possible with the cooperation of German soldiers as well as a range of collaborators, including “ordinary” people (Browning, ), inspired Milgram to create experiments designed to understand how and why individuals would comply with orders to brutalize other human beings (Miller et al., ; Reicher & Haslam, ; Russell & Gregory, ).…”