How much suffering are ordinary people willing to inflict on other, completely innocent people, if this is part of their job duties? If you do not know the exact answer, it is impossible to guess. American psychologist Stanley Milgram tried to find out in an experiment that has become a classic of psychology forever.

Stanley Milgram lived a short life and wrote little. He entered the history of science thanks to his striking experiments, which forced psychologists, and simply thinking people, to re-evaluate the features of our inner world hidden from a superficial glance, our unconscious attitudes towards ourselves and others.

One of these attitudes turned out to be the phenomenal fact that very few people are able to resist the authorities, even if it requires something completely impartial. Milgram began research in this direction to clarify the question of how German citizens during the years of Nazi domination could participate in the destruction of millions of innocent people in concentration camps.

The scientist's famous experiment was as follows. It was attended by three people - "boss", "teacher" and "student".

The "teacher" gave the "student" a task that he had to complete. In the event of a "student's" mistake, the "teacher" punished him with an electric shock. With each new error, the punishment voltage increased in steps of 15 V up to 450 V. After using the voltage limit three times, the experiment was terminated. The "head" was present during the experiment and gave instructions to the "teacher". The role of the "teacher" was played by a volunteer from ordinary people who agreed to take part in the experiment. The "boss" was a researcher, an experimenter. But the role of the "student" was played by an actor who only pretended to receive blows; his answers were standardized and chosen so that, on average, there were three wrong answers for every correct answer. The volunteer, of course, did not know about this.

Naturally, with increasing tension, the "teacher" had a desire to complete the experiment. But then the "boss" showed up.

The experimenter (E) required the "teacher" (T) to give the "student" (L) simple memory tasksand with each mistake of the “student”, press the button, supposedly punishing the “student” with an electric shock

If the subject showed hesitation, then the experimenter demanded the continuation of one of the predetermined phrases:

"Please continue";

"The experiment requires you to continue";

"It's absolutely essential that you continue";

"You have no other choice, you must continue."

These phrases were spoken in order, beginning with the first, when the "teacher" refused to continue the experiment. If the "teacher" continued to refuse, the next phrase from the list was said. If the "teacher" refused after the 4th phrase, the experiment was interrupted.

A few days before the start of his experiment, Milgram asked several of his colleagues, psychology students, to read the study plan and try to guess how many “teacher” subjects would, no matter what, increase the discharge voltage until they were stopped ( at a voltage of 450 V) experimenter. Most of the psychologists interviewed suggested that between one and two percent of all subjects would do so.

39 psychiatrists were also interviewed. They assumed that no more than 20% of the subjects would continue the experiment to half the voltage (225 V) and only one in a thousand would increase the voltage to the limit.

No one expected the amazing results that were obtained - contrary to all forecasts, most of the subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist who led the experiment and punished the “student” with electric shock even after he started screaming and kicking the wall.

Here is a typical result of one of the series of experiments:

26 out of 40 subjects, instead of taking pity on the victim, continued to increase the voltage (up to 450 V) until the researcher gave the order to end the experiment. Only five subjects (12.5%) stopped at a voltage of 300 V, when the first signs of discontent appeared from the victim (knocking on the wall) and the answers stopped coming. Four more (10%) stopped at 315 V when the victim knocked on the wall a second time without giving an answer. Two (5%) refused to continue at 330 V when both responses and knocks stopped coming from the victim. One person each - at the next three levels (345, 360 and 375 V). The remaining 26 out of 40 reached the end of the scale.

After fine-tuning his experimental techniques in the United States, Milgram planned to travel with them to Germany, where he believed the inhabitants were very obedient and therefore submitted to the Nazis. However, after the very first experiment he conducted in New Haven (Connecticut), it became clear that there was no need to travel to Germany and that one could continue to engage in scientific research close to home. "I found so much obedience," Milgram said, "that I don't see the need to do this experiment in Germany."

Subsequently, Milgram's experiment was nevertheless repeated in Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Jordan, and the results were the same as in America.

In 2002, Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland published in Psychology Today a summary of the results of all replicas of the Milgram experiment made in the United States and abroad. It turned out that from 61 to 66% reach the end of the scale, regardless of time and place.

To explain the cruelty shown by the test subjects, several assumptions were made, which were not confirmed in further experiments:

The gender of the subject did not affect the results, the female “teachers” behaved in exactly the same way as the males. This dispelled the myth of softhearted women;

The subjects were aware of the danger of electric current for the "student", the behavior of the "teachers" did not change when the "student" shouted that he had a sick heart and felt bad, 65% of the subjects conscientiously performed their duties, bringing the voltage to the maximum;

The subjects were not sadists, they did not experience pleasure from the suffering of the victim. When the experimenter left and his "assistant" remained in the room, only 20% agreed to continue the experiment, when the subject was given the right to choose the voltage himself, 95% remained within 150 volts, when instructions were given by telephone, obedience decreased to 20%.

In Milgram's opinion, the study simply showed an extremely strong willingness of normal adults to go abnormally far, following the directions of authority - after all, the subjects were ordinary, mentally healthy people, as Milgram said, "they are you and me";

The ethical ambiguity of the experiment caused Milgram to be wary in official scientific circles, and his application for admission to the American Psychological Association was even rejected at first, he became a member of the APA only in 1970.

In one of the following articles, we will talk about another remarkable experiment of the scientist - to test the well-known theory of "six handshakes".

Last update: 08/12/2018

The dangers of obedience is what Stanley Milgram called his experiment. And obedience to authority can be really very dangerous, because sometimes it even runs counter to universal human values.

“The social psychology of this century shows us the main lesson: often a person’s actions are determined not by his features, but by the situation in which he is located” - Stanley Milgram, 1974

If a person in authority ordered you to deliver a 400 volt electric shock to another person, would you agree to this? Most people will answer this question with a resounding no. But Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experimental studies of obedience in the 1960s with surprising results.

Background to the Milgram experiment

Milgram began his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann began. “How could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just doing assignments? Were they all accomplices? - such a question was put by Milgram in his report "Obedience to authority".

Milgram Experiment Method

The participants in the experiment were forty men who were recruited through newspaper ads. They were each offered a $4.50 payment.
Milgram designed a very plausible and frightening-looking generator, equipped with 15 V division buttons. The voltage started at 30 V and ended at 450 V. Most of the switches were labeled "light shock", "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final pair of buttons were labeled simply with the ominous "XXX".

The participants were divided into “teachers” and “students” by a rigged “lot”, during the experiment they were separated by a wall. The "teacher" had to shock the "student" every time he said the wrong answer. While the participant assumed that he actually shocked the "student", in fact, no shocks occurred, and the "student" was actually an ally of the experiment, feigning a shock.

During the experiment, the participant heard the "student's" pleas for mercy, requests to let him out and complaints about a sick heart. As soon as the current level reached 300 volts, the "student" desperately drummed on the wall and demanded release. Then he calmed down and stopped answering questions. The experimenter then ordered the participant to consider this silence as a wrong answer and press the next button for an electric shock.

Most of the participants asked the experimenter if they should continue? But the experimenter gave them a series of commands requiring action:

• "Please continue";
• "The experiment requires you to continue";
• "It's absolutely essential that you continue";
• "You have no other choice, you must continue."

Results of the Milgram experiment

The level of electrical voltage that the participant was willing to deliver was used as a measure of obedience.
How far do you think most of the participants have gone?

When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale students, they assumed that no more than three out of a hundred participants would give the maximum shock. In fact, 65% of participants put the maximum.

Of the 40 participants in the experiment, 26 set the maximum level of electric shock, and only 14 stopped before. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely anxious, agitated, and angry with the experimenter. Milgram later clarified that 84% were happy to participate, and only 1% regretted participating in the experiment.

Discussion of the Milgram experiment

While Milgram's study raised serious questions about the ethics of using humans in these kinds of psychological experiments, his findings remained consistent across all subsequent research. Thomas Blass (1999) continued experiments of this kind and found that Milgram's results hold up.

Why did most of the participants perform sadistic acts according to authoritative instructions? According to Milgram, there are many situational factors that can explain this high level of obedience:

• the physical presence of the authority figure dramatically increased compliance;
• the fact that the study was conducted by Yale University, a reputable educational institution, led most of the participants to believe that the experiment should be safe;
• the choice of teacher and student status seemed random;
• participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert;
• participants were assured that the shocks were painful but not dangerous.

Milgram's later experiments indicated that the presence of reluctant participants dramatically increased obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenter's orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to go up to the maximum current level.

“Ordinary people, just doing their job, and without much hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effect of their work becomes apparent, but they are asked to continue actions that are inconsistent with the fundamental standards of ethics, few people find the strength to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram's experiment became a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggested that situational variables had a stronger influence than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is more influenced by a combination of external and internal factors such as personal beliefs and personality traits.

Watch the video of Stanley Milgram's experiment "Obedience.(obedience)"

Got something to say? Leave a comment!.

A few months before the start of the study in 1961, a high-profile trial began in Israel against Adolf Eichmann, the Gestapo head of the department responsible for "solving the Jewish question." The Eichmann trial gave rise to such a thing as "the banality of evil" - under this title a book by The New Yorker journalist Hannah Arendt, who was present at the trial, was published. Observation of Eichmann led Arendt to the idea that there was nothing demonic or psychopathic about his figure. According to the journalist, this was the most ordinary careerist who was used to following the orders of his superiors without further questions, no matter what the work itself implied, even if it was massacres.

In an attempt to explain the history of atrocities perpetrated by mankind, similar to those that took place during the Second World War, Yale University professor, psychologist and sociologist Stanley Milgram decided on an experiment. The experience of the scientist has become a kind of canonical example, which is studied by students of psychological faculties around the world. Milgram outlined the study in several stages, one of which was to conduct it outside the United States, namely in Germany. However, after processing the first data obtained as a result of working with residents of the town of New Haven, Connecticut, Milgram pushed this idea aside. There was plenty of material, in his opinion. True, a little later, the professor nevertheless traveled outside the United States in order to conduct similar experiments in order to confirm his theory.

Milgram's experiment has become one of the canonical experiments in psychology

Milgram disguised the true experiment and recruited volunteers to participate in the "scientific study of memory." The brochure stated that each volunteer would receive $4 and an additional 50 cents for travel expenses. The money will be issued in any case, regardless of the result, simply upon arrival at the laboratory. The process should have taken no more than an hour. Everyone aged 20 to 50, of different sexes and professions, was invited: businessmen, clerks, simple workers, hairdressers, salesmen and others. However, students and high school students could not take part in the experiment.

Stanley Milgram with students, 1961

The experience was presented to the participants as a study of the effects of pain on memory. The volunteer, upon arrival at the laboratory, met there another similar test subject, whose role was played by a dummy actor. The experimenter explained that each of them would play "teacher" or "student" - depending on how the lot decides. The task of the “student” was to memorize as many phrases as possible from a list prepared in advance (for example, “red house” or “hot asphalt”). The “teacher” had to test the “student”, checking how many pairs of words he remembered, and in case of an incorrect answer, beat the last with a current discharge. With each incorrect answer, the “teacher” had to increase the discharge strength by 15 volts. The maximum electric shock was 450 volts.

Before the start of the experiment, all real subjects were asked to choose a piece of paper where their role would be indicated. The dummy study participant also drew lots. All the pieces of paper said "teacher", and the real participant always acted only in this role. Then the leader of the experiment escorted the “student” to a special room, where he was seated in a chair and the electrodes were connected. The whole procedure was defiantly carried out in front of the “teacher”, who was then led to a neighboring office and offered to take a seat in front of an electric generator. In addition to the marks on the scale (from 15 to 450 in steps of 15 volts), there was also a gradation in groups characterizing the strength of the blow (from “weak” to “dangerous” and “hard to bear”) so that the “teacher” had an approximate idea of ​​the degree of pain. As a demonstration before the start of the experiment, the "teachers" were beaten with a light shock.

For the wrong answer, the “teacher” had to beat the “student” with a current

The “teacher” read out to the “student” the first word from each pair and offered a choice of four options for ending the combination. The answer was displayed on the scoreboard, which was located in front of the subject's eyes. The task of the “teacher” was not only to start a discharge in case of an error, but also to warn the “student” about this, notifying the force of the blow, and then inform the correct version. The experiment was to continue until the "student" remembered all the phrases, which were subsequently read to him repeatedly. Milgram set the bar: if the subject reached the mark of 450 volts, the experimenter insisted that he continue to beat the "student" with the maximum discharge, but after three clicks on this lever, the study was completed.

"Student" is connected to the electrodes

In fact, no one was shocked during the experiment, of course. The task of the decoy participant was to act out suffering - gradually, with an increase in the strength of the discharge, he moved from screams to pleas to stop the test. Sometimes the "student" calmed down, feigning either a loss of consciousness, or a heart attack. If the answer to the question was not received within 5-10 seconds, this should be regarded as an error and, accordingly, be shocked. The “teacher”, who heard all the groans, knocks and requests through the wall, at some point could express a desire to immediately stop the torture, but the task of the curator was to convince him to go further. According to Milgram, 4 phrases were used with varying degrees of insistence: from "please continue" to "you must continue, you have no choice." To questions about how painful this or that discharge would be, the experimenter answered that there was no threat to life, in any case. The curator could also assure the subject that he took full responsibility for the condition of the other participant. It is important to emphasize that the “teacher” did not receive any threats in case of refusal to continue. However, if he still did not agree after the 4th, most “convincing” phrase, then the process was terminated.

In the basic version of the experiment that Milgram presented to the world, out of 40 subjects, 26 (that is, 65%) reached the end, that is, “hit” the second participant with a maximum discharge of 450 volts. One person stopped at 375 volts, one at 360, and another at 345. Two more stopped the experiment when they got to 330 volts. Four people refused to participate when they reached 315 volts, and five after the 300 volt mark.

65% of the participants in the experiment reached the maximum electrical scale

According to the recollections of one of the participants in the study, Joe Dimow, after the experiment was interrupted, the curator showed him several images and asked him to describe his thoughts on this matter. In one of the pictures, a young teacher brandished a whip at a child, and the director of the school supervised the “flogging”. Joe was then asked to outline the degree of responsibility of each of the participants in the experiment: the "teacher", the "student" and the facilitator. After that, a dummy participant was taken out of the second room, where there was a chair with electrodes. According to Dimou, he looked terrible, his face was in tears.

In 1961 and 1962, Milgram conducted a series of experiments that varied somewhat. Somewhere the "teacher" did not hear the groans of the "student" behind the wall, somewhere he was in the same room with the "student" (in this case, there was less obedience to the curator). Sometimes it was the task of the “teacher” to press the hand of the “student” to the electrode himself, which also reduced the percentage of obedience. Milgram played out scenarios with several dummy "teachers" and a couple of curators who could not agree among themselves. In the event of disputes between "administrative persons", the subjects showed more freedom of will, but under the pressure of the opinion of "colleagues" - the same "teachers", as a rule, they gave in. In some cases, the "student" warned in advance about heart problems.

One of the participants in the experiment in front of the generator

Milgram's experiment received a lot of critical acclaim. Thus, it has been argued that a study cannot initially be considered "pure" if its participants were not disclosed to the true purpose. There were many questions about the procedure. Were the “teachers” fully aware of the degree of pain from the electric shock? Could their attitude to the experiment have been influenced by the fact that it was supervised by a professor from Yale University himself? Did the subject have sadistic tendencies? Did they not have a special predisposition to submit to authority?

The participants in the experiment were not villains, but the most ordinary inhabitants

As a result of subsequent similar studies both in the United States and abroad, Milgram was able to discard many of these questions that called into question the representativeness of the experiment. The professor argued that the results would vary slightly depending on the country in which the study takes place. According to Milgram, a key role in such behavior is played by the idea rooted in the mind of a person about the need to obey the authorities and authorities. At the same time, in fact, any person dressed appropriately can act as an "authority". In this case, such a representative of authority, the chief giving orders, was a researcher in a white coat. According to the professor's assumptions, without the presence of the "authority" who insisted on continuing the execution, the experiment would have ended much faster. Milgram tried to argue that the vast majority were incapable of putting up any serious resistance to the person they considered invested with power, but at the same time emphasized that the study participants themselves were no more villains and sadists than the most ordinary, average member of modern society.

The Milgram Experiment is an experiment in social psychology conducted by a resident of the United States of America Stanley Milgram in 1963. The psychologist himself studied at Yale University. Stanley first introduced his work to the public in his article "Submission: A Study in Behavior." Somewhat later, he wrote a book on the same subject, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Study, which was published in 1974.

In the twentieth century, many experimental studies were carried out, but the most striking ones were. Since such studies affect the ethical standards of a person, the result obtained becomes the subject of public discussion. This is exactly what Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment was.

Much is known about this experiment, and it is called the most cruel for a reason. The subjects had a veiled task to awaken the sadist in themselves, to learn how to deliver pain to others and not feel remorse.

background

Stanley Milgram was born on August 15, 1933 in the Bronx, a disadvantaged area of ​​New York. Refugees and settlers from Eastern Europe settled in this area. One such family was Samuel and Adele Milgram, with their three children, who moved to the city during the First World War. Stanley was the middle child. He received his first level of education at the James Monroe School. By the way, Philip Zimbardo studied with him in the class, who also became a famous psychologist in the future. After both became successful, Zimbardo began duplicating Milgham's research topics. What it is - imitation or really thoughts in unison, still remains a mystery.

After graduating from high school, Stanley entered King's College in New York and chose the political science department. But after a while he realized that this was not his element. In explaining this, he said that political science does not take into account the opinions and motivations of people at the proper level. But he completed his studies, and decided to enter graduate school in another specialty. While studying at college, Milgram was seriously interested in the specialty "social psychology". He decided to continue studying this specialty at Harvard. But, unfortunately, he was not accepted due to lack of knowledge and experience in that area. But Stanley was very determined, and in just one summer he did the impossible: he took six courses in social psychology at three universities in New York. As a result, in the fall of 1954, he made another attempt to enter Harvard, and he was accepted.

First Mentor

During his studies, he became friends with a visiting lecturer named Solomon Ash. He became for Milgram an authority and an example for further growth in the field of psychology. Solomon Asch gained his fame thanks to the study of the phenomenon of conformity. Milgram assisted Ash in both teaching and research.

After graduating from Harvard, Stanley Milgram returned to the United States and continued to work at Princeton with his mentor Solomon Ash. It is worth noting the fact that, despite the close communication between men, there were no friendly and easy relations between them. Milgram treated Ash solely as an intellectual educator. After a year of work at Princeton, he decided to go into independent work and began to develop a scheme for his own scientific experiment.

The meaning of the experiment

In Stanley Milgram's cruel experiment, the task was to find out how much suffering ordinary people are willing to inflict on others if this is part of their job responsibilities. Initially, the psychologist decided to experiment on people in Germany during the period of Nazi domination in order to identify individuals who could participate in the destruction and torture in concentration camps. After Milgram perfected his social experiment, he planned to go to Germany, as he believed that the Germans were more inclined to obey. But after the first experiment in New Haven, it became clear that there was no need to go anywhere, and it was possible to continue working in the United States of America.

The result showed that people are not able to resist the authoritative authorities, who were ordered by order to make other innocent people suffer by passing electric charges through them. The result was such that the position of the authorities and the duty of unquestioning obedience were deeply embedded in the subconscious of the common people, that no one can resist the decrees, even if they contradict the principles and create an internal conflict for the performer.

As a result, this cruel experiment of Milgram was repeated in several other countries: Austria, Holland, Spain, Jordan, Germany and Italy. The result obtained turned out to be the same as in America: people are ready to inflict pain, torture and even death not only on a foreigner, but also on a compatriot, if the higher leadership requires it.

Description of the experiment

Milgram's experiment "Obedience" was conducted on the territory. More than a thousand people took part in it. Initially, the essence of the actions was simple: to offer a person more and more actions that would be contrary to his conscience. The key question of experience, accordingly, would sound like this: how far can a person go in inflicting pain on another until obedience to a mentor becomes contradictory for him?

The participants of the experiment were presented in a slightly different light: the study of the influence of physical pain on human memory functions. The experiment involved a mentor (experimenter), a test subject (further a student) and a dummy actor in the role of the second test subject. Next, the rules were announced: the student memorizes a long list of pairs of words, and the teacher checks how accurately the other learned the words. In case of a mistake, the teacher passes an electric charge through the student's body. With each mistake, the charge level increases.

The game has begun

Before the start of the experiment, Milgram arranged a lottery. Two sheets of paper with the inscriptions "student" and "teacher" were asked to pull out each participant, while the teacher was always given to the subject. The actor in the role of a student walked to a chair with electrodes attached to it. Before the start, everyone was given a demonstrative shock with a voltage of 45 volts.

The teacher went into the next room and began to give assignments to the student. With each mistake in memorizing pairs of words, the teacher pressed the button, after which the student was shocked. The rules of Milgram's submission experiment were that with each new error, the voltage increased by 15 volts, and the maximum voltage was 450 volts. As mentioned earlier, the role of the student is played by an actor who pretends to be electrocuted. The answer system was designed so that for every correct answer, the actor gave three wrong ones. Thus, when the teacher read a couple of words to the end of the first page, the student was already threatened with a blow of 105 volts. After the subject wanted to proceed to the second sheet with pairs of words, the experimenter said to go back to the first and start again, reducing the current shock to 15 volts. This testified to the seriousness of the experimenter's intentions and that the experiment would not end until all pairs of words had been completed.

First contradiction

Upon reaching 105 volts, the student began to demand an end to torture, which gave the subject a lot of remorse and personal contradictions. The experimenter spoke to the teacher several phrases that prompted the continuation of actions. As the charge increased, the actor feigned pain more and more, and the teacher became more and more hesitant in his actions.

climax

During this time, the experimenter did not remain idle, but said that he took full responsibility for the safety of the student and for the entire course of the experiment, and that the experiment should be continued. But at the same time, there were no threats or promises of reward towards the teacher.

With each increase in tension, the actor begged more and more to stop the torment, yelling heart-rendingly towards the end. The experimenter continued to instruct the teacher, using special phrases that were repeated in a circle, each time the subject doubted.

As a result, each experiment was completed. The results of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment amazed everyone.

Stunning Results

According to the results of one of the experiments, it was recorded that 26 of the 40 subjects did not take pity on the student and brought the torture to the maximum discharge of current (450 volts). After turning on the maximum voltage three times, the experimenter gave the order to end the experiment. The five teachers stopped at 300 volts when the victim started showing signs that he couldn't take it anymore (banging on the wall). In addition, the actors stopped giving answers at this point. Four more people stopped at 315 volts when the student knocked on the wall a second time and gave no answer. Two subjects stopped at 330 volts when both knocks and responses stopped coming. One person each stopped at the following levels: 345 in, 360 in, 357 in. The rest have reached the end. The results obtained truly frightened the people. The subjects themselves were also horrified at what they might get to.

Full information about the experiment

You can read more about Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiment in his book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Study. The book is published in all languages ​​of the world and it will not be difficult to find it. Indeed, what is described in it fascinates and horrifies at the same time. How Stanley Milgram came up with just such an experiment and why he chose such a cruel method remains a mystery.

Half a century ago, Stanley Milgram conducted a legendary experiment that showed how easily ordinary people, obeying orders, do terrible things. And newly unearthed archival material indicates that this readiness is motivated: simply by the belief that cruelty serves a good purpose.

Half a century ago, Stanley Milgram conducted a legendary experiment that showed how easily ordinary people, obeying orders, do terrible things. And recently unearthed archival material indicates that this readiness is motivated: simply by the belief that cruelty serves a good purpose.

PROFESSION: Executioner

In 1961, Adolf Eichmann, the immediate leader of the mass extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany, was tried in Jerusalem. The process was important not only because the offender was overtaken by a well-deserved retribution, but also because of the huge influence that he had on the development of modern ideas about human social behavior. The strongest impression on those who watched the course of the trial was made by the line of defense chosen by Eichmann, who emphasized that, while operating the conveyor of death, he was only doing his job, following the orders and requirements of the laws. And this is very similar to the truth: the defendant did not at all give the impression of a monster, a sadist, a manic anti-Semite, or a pathological personality. He was incredibly, terribly normal.

Eichmann's trial and a detailed analysis of the psychological and social mechanisms that make normal people commit terrible atrocities is the subject of Hannah Arendt's classic of moral philosophy, covering the trial for The New Yorker, The Banality of Evil. Eichmann in Jerusalem (Europe, 2008).

"EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE END"

Another equally famous study of the banality of evil was conducted by the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, who proved experimentally that, indeed, the most ordinary people, as a rule, are so inclined to obey a figure endowed with authority that, "merely" following an order, they are capable of extreme cruelty towards other people, towards whom they do not harbor either malice or hatred *. The Obedience Experiment, better known simply as the Milgram Experiment, was started a few months after the start of the trial of Eichmann and under his influence, and the first work on its results appeared in 1963.

The experiment was set up like this. It was presented to the participants as a study of the effects of pain on memory. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject ("teacher") and an actor who played the role of another subject ("student"). It was stated that the "student" should memorize pairs of words from a long list, and the "teacher" - to test his memory and punish for each mistake with an increasingly strong electric shock. Before the start of the action, the “teacher” received a demonstration shock with a voltage of 45 V. He was also assured that electric shocks would not cause serious harm to the health of the “student”. Then the “teacher” went into another room, began to give the “student” tasks and, with each mistake, pressed the button, supposedly giving an electric shock (in fact, the actor who played the “student” only pretended to receive blows). Starting with 45 V, the "teacher" with each new error had to increase the voltage by 15 V up to 450 V.

If the "teacher" hesitated before giving another "discharge", the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for what was happening, and said: "Please continue. The experience must be completed. You have to do it, you have no choice." At the same time, however, he did not threaten the doubting “teacher” in any way, including not threatening to deprive him of the reward for participating in the experiment ($4).

In the first version of the experiment, the room in which the "student" was located was isolated, and the "teacher" could not hear him. Only when the force of the “impact” reached 300 volts (all 40 subjects reached this moment, and not one of them stopped earlier!), The “student” actor began to hit the wall, and this is what the “teacher” heard. Soon the "student" calmed down and stopped answering questions.

26 people made it to the very end. They, obeying the order, continued to press the button, even when the “voltage” reached 450 V. On the scale of their “device”, values ​​\u200b\u200bfrom 375 to 420 V were marked with the inscription “Danger: the strongest shock”, and the marks 435 and 450 V were simply marked with the sign “ XXX".

Of course, the experiment was repeated many times, checked and rechecked, slightly varying the conditions (the gender composition of the participants, the degree of pressure from the experimenter, the behavior of the “student” actor). In one of the versions, in particular, when the force of the “blow” reached 150 V, the “student” began to complain about his heart and asked to stop, and the “teacher” heard him. After that, 7 out of 40 people refused to increase the “voltage” beyond the 150-volt mark, but, oddly enough, the same 26 out of 40 reached the end - up to 450 V.

45 YEARS LATER

The influence of the Milgram experiment on the professional community was so great that now ethical codes have been developed that make its complete reconstruction impossible.

But in 2008, Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University in the United States reproduced Milgram's experiment**, modifying its conditions to fit existing limitations. In Berger's experiments, the "voltage" increased only to 150 volts (although the markings on the scale of the "device" went up to the same 450 V), after which the experiment was interrupted. At the selection stage, participants were weeded out: firstly, those who knew about the Milgram experiment, and secondly, emotionally unstable people. Each of the test subjects was told at least three times that he could interrupt the experience at any stage, while the reward ($50) would not have to be returned. The strength of the demonstration (real) electric shock that the subjects received before the start of the experiment was 15 V.

As it turned out, little had changed in 25 years: out of 40 subjects, 28 (that is, 70%) were ready to continue increasing the voltage even after the “student”, allegedly having received a 150-volt shock, complained of a heart.

FOR A HIGH PURPOSE

And now, thanks to archival materials*** analyzed by social psychologists from four universities in Australia, Scotland and the USA, it turned out that in the original experiment, in fact, things were even worse than we used to think.

The fact is that from reading the works that Milgram himself published, one gets the impression that it was difficult and unpleasant, if not painful, to obey the orders of the participants in the experiment. “I saw a respectable businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was driven to a nervous breakdown. He trembled, stuttered, constantly tugged at his earlobe and wringed his hands. Once, he hit his forehead with his fist and muttered, "Oh my god, let's stop this." Nevertheless, he continued to react to every word of the experimenter and obeyed him unconditionally, ”he wrote.

But studying the feedback records given by the subjects after the experiment ended and their eyes were opened, explaining the true essence of what happened, tells a different story. In the archives of Yale University, such certificates are available regarding the impressions of 659 out of 800 volunteers who participated in various "takes" of the experiment. Most of these people—ordinary, normal people, not sadists or maniacs—showed no sign of remorse. On the contrary, they reported that they were glad to help science.

“This sheds new light on the psychology of submission and is consistent with other available evidence that people who do evil are usually driven not by the desire to do evil, but by the belief that they are doing something worthy and noble,” comments one of the authors of the archival study, Professor Alex Haslam (Alex Haslam). He is echoed by his colleague in this work, Professor Stephen Reicher (Stephen Reicher): “It can be assumed that we previously misunderstood the ethical and theoretical problems posed by Milgram's research. One has to ask oneself whether one should care about the well-being of the participants in the experiments by making them think that inflicting suffering on others can be justified if it was done in the name of a good cause.

The Australian documentary filmmaker and professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Kathryn Millard, also took part in the study. She used materials found in the archives in her new film, Shock Room, which is now out on screens. The film explores, through cinematic means, how and why people obey criminal orders, and, just as importantly, how and why some still refuse to do evil.

It's time to once again ask yourself the question: "What would I do?"

* S. Milgram “Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, vol. 67, no. 4.

** J. Burger "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?" American Psychologist, January 2009.

*** S. Haslam et al. "Happy to have been of service": The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram's 'obedience' experiments". British Journal of Social Psychology, September 2014.