After the second world war, many social psychologists were particularly interested in the conditions of Nazi Germany, where ordinary young people participated in events leading to the atrocious mass killings of innocent people. The question is, how can ordinary human beings do such unethical deeds? Who is responsible? And how exactly does authority manipulate their followers? This article uncovers the complexities and horrors of the consequences of obedience, but ends in a positive light that explains how to break free from misleading obedience.

The article will cover the following points:

• Introduction with a case example: Abu Ghraib prison
• Study of obedience: Milgram’s experiment
• The norm of obedience to authority
• How to break free: defeating the norm

American social psychologist Stanley Milgram, one of the leading

researchers in studying obedience to authority.

Introduction with a case example: Abu Ghraib

Throughout history, we can see leaders expect obedience from their followers. Although the power of obedience can be positive such as working together under a common goal to make a positive impact in the world, there are many cases where the power of obedience is used inappropriately, yielding the most inhumane events in history and the present[6]. Such an example is the case of Abu Ghraib[7]. After the 9/11 attacks, the US built a prison in Iraq to hold the suspects and criminals. Unthinkable acts of cruelty were performed by prison guards, who took these orders from those higher in command. When asked why they performed these acts, they said they were only doing their job, and thought that they had no other choice but to obey[7]. This is just one example of how obedience can have pernicious impacts. So let’s move on to see how it might work…  

Study of obedience: Milgram’s experiment

The study of obedience to authority started to dominate the field of social psychology in the 1950s. Stanley Milgram, an American psychologist, was inspired by Solomon Asch’s experiments on the role of the majority influence in group conformity[9]. Milgram also took inspiration from Adolf Eichmann’s behavior - a man who planned the mass deportation of jews during the second world war[11]. When asked why he played a role in the mass murders, like many guards of Abu Ghraib, Eichmann asserted that he was simply following orders and that he had no say in the decision. Milgram wanted to find out whether even ordinary people could be influenced by an authority figure to perform unethical acts[8,9].

To answer his question, Milgram set up an experiment where he had participants deliver electrical shocks to a “learner”, who in reality was a confederate (an experimenter that acts out a fictional role)[8]. Essentially, the experiment involved labelling each participant as a “teacher” and the confederate a “learner”. The experimenter in charge deceived participants by telling them that the goal was to investigate the influence of punishment in one’s ability to memorize content. The teacher and learner were sent into a room where the learner was strapped into a fake electrical chair. The experimenter, dressed in a white coat, asserted that the teacher read out pairs of words for the learner to memorize. Afterwards, the teacher was to read out possible answers, and the learner had to click a button after the perceived correct answer. When an answer was incorrect, the teacher had to exert an electric shock to the learner, with 15-volt increments at each wrong answer.

But, in reality, no shocks were administered. During the (fake) electrical shocks, a pre-recorded voice of the learner shouting and begging for the researcher to stop was played, so as to portray a real man struggling in pain. If the teacher asked to stop, the experimenter told them to continue (four prompts were used: e.g. “please continue” and then “you have no other choice but to continue”).

What did Milgram find? 65% of participants continued up until 450 volts (the maximum voltage level). This led him to conclude that “ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being”[8].

How did Milgram explain the behavior? People can be in either two conditions during social situations[9]:

1. The autonomous state - people dictate their own actions and take responsibility for them.
2. The agentic state - people allow others  to dictate their own actions, and perceive that that person will take responsibility for the action. In doing so, the doer acts as an agent of the person delivering orders. According to Milgram, most participants in the experiment were in the agentic state.

The Milgram experiment has been replicated many times cross-culturally, and with both men and women[8]. The results seem to be consistent, inspiring many psychologists to explain this interesting, yet potentially dangerous human behavior.

The norm of obedience to authority

Milgram explained that the participants shared the norm of obedience to authority: a view shared by a group of people that states they should obey commands from a legitimate authority[11]. Whether the latter is “legitimate” is judged by the followers themselves, for example by noting that the authority figure has the right to give orders, and that everyone else is indirectly assigned to “follow”. The norm of obedience can be enforced in many situations, such as when a soldier salutes a senior officer, or more commonly, when employees very politely greet their bosses. However, sometimes obedience can be enforced by one’s personal feelings that the legitimate authority must be obeyed[11]. This seems to be the case in Milgram’s experiment. Inspired by the experiment, let’s see how an authority enforces obedience.

1. Authority must be legitimate

People do not just obey anyone and everyone. To make someone obey them, authority must convey that they are legitimate and thus that their instructions should be followed[11]. Many factors can influence an authority’s legitimacy. For example, it has been demonstrated that the tone of voice, facial expression, and posture convey power and status[12]. Furthermore, clothing also has the potential to assert legitimacy[4]. This seemed to be the case in Milgram’s experiment, where the experimenter wore a white coat- a status of scientific expertise. It is important that the type of clothing is relevant to the setting to invoke obedience. In the setting, a scientific experiment, people were more likely to feel that a person in a white coat has the legitimate authority to give orders.

2. Authority must accept responsibility

For people to reach their agentic state, one of the most important factors is letting the followers know that the authority will accept responsibility of the participants’ actions[9]. In Milgram’s experiment, participants were more likely to shock the learner when the experimenter reminded them that he took full responsibility[9]. In doing so, participants entered their agentic state, where they perceive themselves as agents of authority, merely doing work without having to accept responsibility. Furthermore, responsibility can be diffused as well. For example, authority usually divides despicable work  into small subtasks, each of which may seem harmless[11]. In Milgram’s experiment, 83%  of the participants continued administering the questions when another person was responsible for shocking the learner[8]

3. The norm of obedience must be activated

The norm of obedience must be activated by asserting the legitimate authority’s figure on the participants’ mind[11]. It was found that when the original  experimenter was replaced by a confederate posing as another participant, the “teachers” were more likely to refuse viciously[9]. Although the legitimate authority need not be physically present to enforce the norm, proximity between the authority and the participant increases the likelihood of participants obeying[9]. When the participant and the experimenter were in the same room while the learner is not visible (in another room), obedience was at its highest in comparison to other conditions (the learner and participant in the same room, the participant touches the learner)[9].

4. Social identification and obedience

As mentioned, the legitimacy of authority is derived from the followers themselves: the right of the authority to give orders, and the responsibility of others to obey[11]. Therefore, those who identify with the authority/ what the authority represents the most are those most likely to obey. In Milgram’s experiment, it was found that when the participants identified themselves with the scientific community and the experimenter, rather than the general community and the learner, obedience rates increased[5].

5. Maintaining and escalating obedience

After obedience has been achieved, even only the slightest, it is very possible to escalate actions from the harmless to the harmful[11]. In Milgram’s experiment, participants had to generate very minor, harmless, shocks to (they believed) facilitate learning, which is a positive goal. What participants probably didn’t realise was that they unintentionally performed the first but important part in gradually but fully inflicting pain on someone under the name of obedience. Once people obey, they confirm in their minds the authority’s right to direct their actions, which facilitates the norm of commitment[5]. In real life, we have seen instances where the actions of war criminals are led from the acceptable to the unthinkable. Torturers are usually trained this way: at first delivering very minor pain, then watching others do so, then participating in group infliction of suffering, before finally taking over the unthinkable task themselves[5,11}.

How to break free: defeating the norm

Now that we’ve identified factors that are used by authority to demand obedience, the next step is to learn how to stop getting misled by the norm of obedience.  

1. Reactance

Reactance refers to “the motive to protect or restore a threatened sense of behavioral freedom”[1]. This is common when people believe that they will lose their ability to select their own preferred actions[1,8}. We do this daily, such as when we become more curious in books that are banned in certain places. Essentially, we want to go against the rule instilled by authority. In Milgram’s experiment, some participants simply walked out of the experiment before it began as they felt that their freedom to choose was threatened[8,9]. However, for this rule to be enforced, people should believe that change is still possible (another course of action can be taken), and that normative pressure is labelled as inappropriate[11].

2. Resisting and rejecting norms using systematic processing

Systematic processing refers to “attempts to understand something thoroughly through careful attention, deep thinking, and intensive reasoning”[6]. In order to protect ourselves against normative pressure, we should try our best to comprehend the situation.

• Question how norms are being used - Once you realize how a norm operates (including its consequences), it starts to lose its power. Through questioning the orders of an authority, feelings of obligations will fade away[10].
• Question claims about relationships - Normative pressure starts to lose its power when we question whether the authority really does have the right to direct our actions[6]. In doing so, we ask whether we agree with the authority’s claims of what is to be done[6,11]. Once we have established that there is no connection between us and the authority, we re-assert our individual identity (that our actions depend on our thoughts) and are less likely to obey actions that we don’t agree with[9,11].
• Question others’ view of the situation - Before agreeing with an authority’s commands, question other norms and attitudes that might be relevant[5]. Consider multiple interpretations of the situation to reach the best course of action. This is because the longer you agree with one definition of a situation/course of action, the harder it will be to resist and the more you become polarized[5].  

3. Use norms against norms (rebellion)

A good way to defeat a norm is to create your own norm[11]. The beginning can seem very powerless as only a few people voice out opinions of disagreement with the authority. But as we have observed in many historical events, the resistance group gradually expands as more people feel encouraged to observe and may accept the alternative point of view[6]. And as the resistance group expands, protests will arise, which confronts the authority directly[5,6]. Social identity is shown to be important in resistance[11]. One notable case is how political prisoners of different prisoner groups in Robben Island prison, South Africa, engaged in a successful resistance through forming a common social identity[6].

In conclusion, obedience to a misleading authority can have inhumane consequences, as we’ve seen throughout history and current events. On a brighter note, obedience has its pleasant effects too, such as working together under the unifying mission of saving abused animals. This does not mean though, that we have no choice but to surrender to misleading obedience as many strategies are available to resist misleading commands.

Human behavior is complex and can sometimes frighten us. That’s why learning social psychology has its advantages of realizing both the positive and unsettling potential of ourselves and others.

Additional sources:

1. The Milgram experiment full documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0

2. Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil - TED TALK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

3. Ghosts of Abu Ghraib on youtube (Warning: may contain upsetting content)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGpaOp6_I7M&t=241s

4. Obedience-Obeying a man in uniform

​​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16QMQXIjYVU

References:

1. A. (2016, January 30). Reactance - IResearchNet. Psychology. http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-influence/reactance/
2. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932
3. Bushman, B. J. (1988). The Effects of Apparel on Compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288143004
4. Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A Theory of Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1, 246–266. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n13
5. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
6. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2011). When Prisoners Take Over the Prison. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311419864
7. Hersh, S. M. (2004, April 30). Torture at Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
8. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
9. Milgram, S. (1965). Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800105
10. Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11(4), 267–269. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03336827
11. Smith, E. R., Mackie, D. M., & Claypool, H. M. (2014). Social Psychology: Fourth Edition (4th ed.). Psychology Press.
12. Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558

Image: Gebrek aan Zelfregulering « Willem van der Does. (2009, January 28). Dousa. https://www.dousa.nl/2009/01/28/gebrek-aan-zelfregulering/