Abstract

Attempts to revisit Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority’ (OtA) paradigm present serious ethical challenges. In recent years new paradigms have been developed to circumvent these challenges but none involve using Milgram’s own procedures and asking naïve participants to deliver the maximum level of shock. This was achieved in the present research by using Immersive Digital Realism (IDR) to revisit the OtA paradigm. IDR is a dramatic method that involves a director collaborating with professional actors to develop characters, the strategic withholding of contextual information, and immersion in a real-world environment. 14 actors took part in an IDR study in which they were assigned to conditions that restaged Milgrams’s New Baseline (‘Coronary’) condition and four other variants. Post-experimental interviews also assessed participants’ identification with Experimenter and Learner. Participants’ behaviour closely resembled that observed in Milgram’s original research. In particular, this was evidenced by (a) all being willing to administer shocks greater than 150 volts, (b) near-universal refusal to continue after being told by the Experimenter that “you have no other choice, you must continue” (Milgram’s fourth prod and the one most resembling an order), and (c) a strong correlation between the maximum level of shock that participants administered and the mean maximum shock delivered in the corresponding variant in Milgram’s own research. Consistent with an engaged follower account, relative identification with the Experimenter (vs. the Learner) was also a good predictor of the maximum shock that participants administered.

Highlights

  • I liked my psychotherapist, Dr Baum, but I had to argue with what she was trying to achieve

  • In the present research we report a study that employs the methodology of Immersive Digital Realism (IDR) to restage Milgram’s Obedience to Authority’ (OtA) research

  • There was considerable variability in their responses (SD = 89.5), all went as far as 195 volts (‘‘very strong shock’’) and, on average, they went as far as 300 volts (M = 301.1). This point is significantly greater than 150 volts (t(13) = 6.32, p,.001), but lower than the weighted mean level of shock administered in the corresponding variants of Milgram’s studies (344.8; t(13) = 21.82, p = .09)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

I liked my psychotherapist, Dr Baum, but I had to argue with what she was trying to achieve. (This surprised her.) This was the experiment where normal people were ordered to deliver shocks to someone behind a curtain. The shocks were not real and the screams were those of an actor, but the subject didn’t know that. ‘‘People go into a state of agency and act not on their own volition,’’ she explained to me. She made it sound like they didn’t have a choice, and I knew that was wrong

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.