Destructive Obedience Without Pressure

Studies on obedience to authority highlight the power of the situation by showing how an experimental setting can trap participants and force them to commit acts contrary to their values ( Bocchiaro & Zimbardo, 2010 ). The source of obedience has generally been represented by an institutional scientific authority. In the present experiment, we tested a more widespread form of authority: a managerial authority implemented in the form of an administrative violence paradigm ( Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986 ). Specifically, we compared two forms of authority: obedience to authority as manipulated by Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) , where the requests are made in an authoritarian manner, and compliance without pressure, where the participant is told that he is free to do what is requested ( Enzle & Harvey, 1982 ). The results illustrate that a substantial level of obedience can be elicited even in the absence of explicit authoritarian pressure.

Obedience

Most obedience research is concerned with the kind of destructive obedience demonstrated in Milgram’s famous studies. A large number of participants in those investigations followed an experimenter’s instructions to administer what they believe to be excruciating if not dangerous electric shocks to another individual. Ethical concerns about Milgram’s procedures have forced researchers to develop new methods to study obedience, such as virtual reality procedures and partial replications. A small number of studies suggest that personality may affect obedience, but there is little evidence to date that culture or gender plays an important role. Milgram’s interpretation of his findings has been largely rejected, but explanations based on the relationship between the experimenter and the participant and on situational variables that affect social influence processes are promising. The extent to which Milgram’s findings help us understand the obedience that contributed to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany remains a topic of debate.

Authority Relationship From a Societal Perspective: Social Representations of Obedience and Disobedience in Austrian Young Adults

Obedience and disobedience have always been salient issues for both civil society and social psychologists. Since Milgram’s first studies on destructive obedience there has not been a bottom-up definition of what obedience and disobedience mean. The current study aimed at investigating the social representations young adults use to define and to co-construct knowledge about obedience and disobedience in Austria. One hundred fifty four (106 females, 68.8%) Austrian young adults (Mean age = 22.9; SD = 3.5) completed a mixed-method questionnaire comprising open-ended questions and free word associations. Overall obedience and disobedience are respectively defined as conformity and non-conformity to regulations, ranging from implicit social norms to explicit formal laws. Authority is multi-faceted and has a central role in orienting obedience and disobedience. Further fundamental determinants of the authority relationship and relevant application of the results are discussed in this paper.

Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition

Mainstream social psychology focuses on how people characteristically violate norms of action through social misbehaviors such as conformity with false majority judgments, destructive obedience, and failures to help those in need. Likewise, they are seen to violate norms of reasoning through cognitive errors such as misuse of social information, self-enhancement, and an over-readiness to attribute dispositional characteristics. The causes of this negative research emphasis include the apparent informativeness of norm violation, the status of good behavior and judgment as unconfirmable null hypotheses, and the allure of counter-intuitive findings. The shortcomings of this orientation include frequently erroneous imputations of error, findings of mutually contradictory errors, incoherent interpretations of error, an inability to explain the sources of behavioral or cognitive achievement, and the inhibition of generalized theory. Possible remedies include increased attention to the complete range of behavior and judgmental accomplishment, analytic reforms emphasizing effect sizes and Bayesian inference, and a theoretical paradigm able to account for both the sources of accomplishment and of error. A more balanced social psychology would yield not only a more positive view of human nature, but also an improved understanding of the bases of good behavior and accurate judgment, coherent explanations of occasional lapses, and theoretically grounded suggestions for improvement.

Freiwilligkeit der Gewalt?

The series of psychological explanations for the atrocities of Hitler’s Germany followed a development that started with the personality of the perpetrators and subsequently focused on the situation, almost to the exclusion of the person component. Milgram’s experimental series marks a turning point. His construct of destructive obedience claims a validity that transcends the Nazi context and has far-reaching implications for human behavior in hierarchies, irrespective of the political system. The merits of his approach can be understood in comparison and in connection with other theoretical and empirical venues that each provide a unique insight into the mechanisms underlying the Holocaust.