essay about obedience to authority

Obedience and Authority Argumentative Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Studies of obedience to authority have been important to social psychologists as they study the manner in which authorities change thoughts, behaviors and feelings of citizens.

Despite the fact that Obedience has been perceived as a useful tenet in society, psychological research has suggested the existence of a dark side (Hill par. 5-8). Therefore, it is necessary for authorities to order people to be obedient, but the orders have to be based on moral standards. In this paper, the negative and positive aspects of the authorities’ orders are compared while maintaining the necessity of obedience to authority.

The manner in which people obey those in authority has been the focus of recent debate and research. For instance, Stanley Miligram, a social psychologist described an experiment where ordinary citizens delivered electric shock every time a person failed to memorize certain words. In this experiment, shock givers did not know that no shock was being delivered, and the recipient was trained to respond by false pretence.

The experiment revealed that about two thirds of shock deliverers were ready to inflict pain regardless of the recipient’s agony, simply because of authorization (Tourist 13).

In line with Miligram’s experiment, the situation in Abu Ghraib prison (where soldiers participated in inhumane treatment of detainees due to orders from those in authority) and Okinawa (where residents were ordered by Japanese military to kill themselves using grenades) gives the implication that even decent people can end up torturing and killing when given the right circumstances.

The fact that the soldiers in Abu Ghraib participated in torturing of detainees (they considered it principled or even romantic) raises the important question whether the bow to authority must exist among all people or moral oppositions should sometimes be put up. Therefore, a balance between obedience and non-compliance has to be struck, since obedience is required for smooth functioning of societies.

Similarly, when people oppose authority blindly, it causes a delusional belief where they think they possess a certain moral virtue. This is contrary to the fact that real life always requires people to exercise compromise. Several authors (e.g. Wenker) have pointed out that blind opposition to authority serves no other role other than a satisfaction to one’s own egoism, which may be detrimental to society and people’s well being.

Therefore, as much as authorities should order people to be obedient, the existence of opposition to authority should be principled, considerate and highly selective (Hersh 1-3; Kambayashi 1-3: Wenker 1-8).

According to Wenker, a strong moral decision exists in the armed forces. Therefore, soldiers have a strong moral obligation to fulfill these decisions by choosing the best approach of attaining their goals in line with those of the military. Soldiers have always attributed the attainment of military goals as being extremely significant.

However, this may contravene the rights and freedoms of those involved, as explained by the attempt of soldiers to milk evidence from detainees at Abu Ghraib prison through immoral and inhumane ways (Wenker 5). According to Wenker, the military force is not justified to use authority in a manner which contravenes the rights of citizens.

Therefore, he suggests that “the armed forces are a means to very significant moral ends” (Wenker 7). Wenker further points out that the military system of authority is not devoid of unfair treatment, for instance when liberties of soldiers are restricted in certain situations. However, authorities (e.g., the military system) have generally achieved a remarkable record of promoting fair treatment.

For instance, though obedience by prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was necessary as part of their rehabilitation, there was also a dark side because of the tendency by American soldiers to obey authority figures, even when they made demands which were out rightly questionable and ultimately immoral to the detainees (Hersh 1-3; Kambayashi 1-3; Hill par. 5-8).

According to Wenker, authorities need more instruments to realize their goals other than solely relying on soldiers. Hence Wenker points out that there must be societal cooperation, where the effort of each societal member is in line with the effort of others. However, for such a phenomenon to occur, conscious decisions have to be made, which elicits the necessity of societal decision procedures.

Wenker asserts that if effective and fair decisions are adopted as part of procedures, citizens tend to obey them. Therefore, obedience to authority is a condition which is necessary so that the moral goals of authorities can be achieved. Hence according to Henkel, obedience is a functional imperative, so long as the decision procedure undertaken by authorities is fair and effective (Wenker 1-8).

For instance, protests by Okinawa residents due to attempts to downplay army’s role in mass suicides was a justified and fair approach taken by society on moral grounds. Hence the decision by authorities to revise history and protect involvement of the military in mass suicide during the Second World War was a decision that was morally wrong (Kambayashi 1-3; Hill par. 5-8).

Because of the obligation of personnel working in authorities to obey military or police authority, the personnel, in any situation should rely on obedience as the morally appropriate response to decisions. However, quick obedience should not be blind and the personnel’s moral sensitivities should be kept alert towards the possibility that disobedience might be required by morality (Wenker 8; Hill par. 5-8).

Works Cited

Hersh, Semour. “Torture in Abu Ghraib: American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis-How Far Does the Responsibility Go?” The New York Times . 2004: 1-3. Print.

Hill, Spyglass. Notes on Military leadership , n.d. Web.

Kambayashi, Takehiko. “Japan Revises History Texts: Okinawa Resident’s Protest Attempts to Downplay Army’s Role in Mass Suicides”, The Correspondent. 1990: 2-3. Print.

Tourist, Grief. Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment . 2009. Web.

Wenker, Kenneth. “Morality and Military Obedience”, Air University Review . 1981: 1-8. Print.

• Professional and General Ethics
• Specters of East Asia: Okinawa, Taiwan, and Korea
• Slovenia Department of Corrections for Male and Female Detainees
• Key Variables and Therapeutic Factors
• Late Adulthood and Death
• Fiske’s Five Social Motives
• Antisocial Personality Disorder Effects
• Theory of Mind Is Vital to the Development of Social Skills
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 5). Obedience and Authority. https://ivypanda.com/essays/obedience-and-authority/

"Obedience and Authority." IvyPanda , 5 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/obedience-and-authority/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Obedience and Authority'. 5 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Obedience and Authority." June 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/obedience-and-authority/.

1. IvyPanda . "Obedience and Authority." June 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/obedience-and-authority/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Obedience and Authority." June 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/obedience-and-authority/.

Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, carried out one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology.

He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on obedience  – that they were just following orders from their superiors.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:

Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures, as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.

Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.

The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher.’  The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).

The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).

The shocks in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments were not real. The “learners” were actors who were part of the experiment and did not actually receive any shocks.

However, the “teachers” (the real participants of the study) believed the shocks were real, which was crucial for the experiment to measure obedience to authority figures even when it involved causing harm to others.

Milgram’s Experiment (1963)

Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.

Volunteers were recruited for a controlled experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception). 

Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.

At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).

They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed, and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).

Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used – one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.

The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes.

After he has learned a list of word pairs given to him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.

The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).

The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.

There were four prods, and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.

Prod 1 : Please continue. Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue. Prod 3 : It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4 : You have no other choice but to continue.

These prods were to be used in order, and begun afresh for each new attempt at defiance (Milgram, 1974, p. 21). The experimenter also had two special prods available. These could be used as required by the situation:

• Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’ (ibid.)
• ‘Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on’ (ibid., p. 22).

65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.

Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study.  All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).

Conclusion 

The individual explanation for the behavior of the participants would be that it was something about them as people that caused them to obey, but a more realistic explanation is that the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did.

Some aspects of the situation that may have influenced their behavior include the formality of the location, the behavior of the experimenter, and the fact that it was an experiment for which they had volunteered and been paid.

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.  Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.

People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.

Milgram summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), writing:

“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”

Milgram’s Agency Theory

Milgram (1974) explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people have two states of behavior when they are in a social situation:

• The autonomous state – people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.
• The agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state:

• The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate.
• The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

According to Milgram, when in this agentic state, the participant in the obedience studies “defines himself in a social situation in a manner that renders him open to regulation by a person of higher status. In this condition the individual no longer views himself as responsible for his own actions but defines himself as an instrument for carrying out the wishes of others” (Milgram, 1974, p. 134).

Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is supported by some aspects of Milgram’s evidence.

For example, when participants were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey.

In contrast, many participants who were refusing to go on did so if the experimenter said that he would take responsibility.

According to Milgram (1974, p. 188):

“The behavior revealed in the experiments reported here is normal human behavior but revealed under conditions that show with particular clarity the danger to human survival inherent in our make-up.

And what is it we have seen? Not aggression, for there is no anger, vindictiveness, or hatred in those who shocked the victim….

Something far more dangerous is revealed: the capacity for man to abandon his humanity, indeed, the inevitability that he does so, as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures.”

Milgram Experiment Variations

The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram (1965) varied the basic procedure (changed the IV).  By doing this Milgram could identify which factors affected obedience (the DV).

Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study). Stanley Milgram conducted a total of 23 variations (also called conditions or experiments) of his original obedience study:

In total, 636 participants were tested in 18 variation studies conducted between 1961 and 1962 at Yale University.

In the original baseline study – the experimenter wore a gray lab coat to symbolize his authority (a kind of uniform).

The lab coat worn by the experimenter in the original study served as a crucial symbol of scientific authority that increased obedience. The lab coat conveyed expertise and legitimacy, making participants see the experimenter as more credible and trustworthy.

Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure.

The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%.

Change of Location:  The Mountain View Facility Study (1963, unpublished)

Milgram conducted this variation in a set of offices in a rundown building, claiming it was associated with “Research Associates of Bridgeport” rather than Yale.

The lab’s ordinary appearance was designed to test if Yale’s prestige encouraged obedience. Participants were led to believe that a private research firm experimented.

In this non-university setting, obedience rates dropped to 47.5% compared to 65% in the original Yale experiments. This suggests that the status of location affects obedience.

Private research firms are viewed as less prestigious than certain universities, which affects behavior. It is easier under these conditions to abandon the belief in the experimenter’s essential decency.

The impressive university setting reinforced the experimenter’s authority and conveyed an implicit approval of the research.

Milgram filmed this variation for his documentary Obedience , but did not publish the results in his academic papers. The study only came to wider light when archival materials, including his notes, films, and data, were studied by later researchers like Perry (2013) in the decades after Milgram’s death.

Two Teacher Condition

When participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches, 92.5% shocked to the maximum of 450 volts.

Allowing the participant to instruct an assistant to press the shock switches diffused personal responsibility and likely reduced perceptions of causing direct harm.

By attributing the actions to the assistant rather than themselves, participants could more easily justify shocking to the maximum 450 volts, reflected in the 92.5% obedience rate.

When there is less personal responsibility, obedience increases. This relates to Milgram’s Agency Theory.

Touch Proximity Condition

The teacher had to force the learner’s hand down onto a shock plate when the learner refused to participate after 150 volts. Obedience fell to 30%.

Forcing the learner’s hand onto the shock plate after 150 volts physically connected the teacher to the consequences of their actions. This direct tactile feedback increased the teacher’s personal responsibility.

No longer shielded from the learner’s reactions, the proximity enabled participants to more clearly perceive the harm they were causing, reducing obedience to 30%. Physical distance and indirect actions in the original setup made it easier to rationalize obeying the experimenter.

The participant is no longer buffered/protected from seeing the consequences of their actions.

Social Support Condition

When the two confederates set an example of defiance by refusing to continue the shocks, especially early on at 150 volts, it permitted the real participant also to resist authority.

Two other participants (confederates) were also teachers but refused to obey. Confederate 1 stopped at 150 volts, and Confederate 2 stopped at 210 volts.

Their disobedience provided social proof that it was acceptable to disobey. This modeling of defiance lowered obedience to only 10% compared to 65% without such social support. It demonstrated that social modeling can validate challenging authority.

The presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of obedience to 10%.

Absent Experimenter Condition 

It is easier to resist the orders from an authority figure if they are not close by. When the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%.

Many participants cheated and missed out on shocks or gave less voltage than ordered by the experimenter. The proximity of authority figures affects obedience.

The physical absence of the authority figure enabled participants to act more freely on their own moral inclinations rather than the experimenter’s commands. This highlighted the role of an authority’s direct presence in influencing behavior.

A key reason the obedience studies fascinate people is Milgram presented them as a scientific experiment, contrasting himself as an “empirically grounded scientist” compared to philosophers. He claimed he systematically varied factors to alter obedience rates.

However, recent scholarship using archival records shows Milgram’s account of standardizing the procedure was misleading. For example, he published a list of standardized prods the experimenter used when participants questioned continuing. Milgram said these were delivered uniformly in a firm but polite tone.

Analyzing audiotapes, Gibson (2013) found considerable variation from the published protocol – the prods differed across trials. The point is not that Milgram did poor science, but that the archival materials reveal the limitations of the textbook account of his “standardized” procedure.

The qualitative data like participant feedback, Milgram’s notes, and researchers’ actions provide a fuller, messier picture than the obedience studies’ “official” story. For psychology students, this shows how scientific reporting can polish findings in a way that strays from the less tidy reality.

Critical Evaluation

Inaccurate description of the prod methodology:.

A key reason the obedience studies fascinate people is Milgram (1974) presented them as a scientific experiment, contrasting himself as an “empirically grounded scientist” compared to philosophers. He claimed he systematically varied factors to alter obedience rates.

However, recent scholarship using archival records shows Milgram’s account of standardizing the procedure was misleading. For example, he published a list of standardized prods the experimenter used when participants questioned continuing. Milgram said these were delivered uniformly in a firm but polite tone (Gibson, 2013; Perry, 2013; Russell, 2010).

Perry’s (2013) archival research revealed another discrepancy between Milgram’s published account and the actual events. Milgram claimed standardized prods were used when participants resisted, but Perry’s audiotape analysis showed the experimenter often improvised more coercive prods beyond the supposed script.

This off-script prodding varied between experiments and participants, and was especially prevalent with female participants where no gender obedience difference was found – suggesting the improvisation influenced results. Gibson (2013) and Russell (2009) corroborated the experimenter’s departures from the supposed fixed prods. 

Prods were often combined or modified rather than used verbatim as published.

Russell speculated the improvisation aimed to achieve outcomes the experimenter believed Milgram wanted. Milgram seemed to tacitly approve of the deviations by not correcting them when observing.

This raises significant issues around experimenter bias influencing results, lack of standardization compromising validity, and ethical problems with Milgram misrepresenting procedures.

Milgram’s experiment lacked external validity:

The Milgram studies were conducted in laboratory-type conditions, and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situations.

We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more subtle than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience. The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more suited to a military context.

Orne and Holland (1968) accused Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism,”’ i.e.,” participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner wasn’t receiving electric shocks.

“It’s more truthful to say that only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real, and of those two-thirds disobeyed the experimenter,” observes Perry (p. 139).

Milgram’s sample was biased:

• The participants in Milgram’s study were all male. Do the findings transfer to females?
• Milgram’s study cannot be seen as representative of the American population as his sample was self-selected. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves).
• They may also have a typical “volunteer personality” – not all the newspaper readers responded so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so.

Yet a total of 636 participants were tested in 18 separate experiments across the New Haven area, which was seen as being reasonably representative of a typical American town.

Milgram’s findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures and most lead to the same conclusions as Milgram’s original study and in some cases see higher obedience rates.

However, Smith and Bond (1998) point out that with the exception of Jordan (Shanab & Yahya, 1978), the majority of these studies have been conducted in industrialized Western cultures, and we should be cautious before we conclude that a universal trait of social behavior has been identified.

Selective reporting of experimental findings:

Perry (2013) found Milgram omitted findings from some obedience experiments he conducted, reporting only results supporting his conclusions. A key omission was the Relationship condition (conducted in 1962 but unpublished), where participant pairs were relatives or close acquaintances.

When the learner protested being shocked, most teachers disobeyed, contradicting Milgram’s emphasis on obedience to authority.

Perry argued Milgram likely did not publish this 85% disobedience rate because it undermined his narrative and would be difficult to defend ethically since the teacher and learner knew each other closely.

Milgram’s selective reporting biased interpretations of his findings. His failure to publish all his experiments raises issues around researchers’ ethical obligation to completely and responsibly report their results, not just those fitting their expectations.

Unreported analysis of participants’ skepticism and its impact on their behavior:

Perry (2013) found archival evidence that many participants expressed doubt about the experiment’s setup, impacting their behavior. This supports Orne and Holland’s (1968) criticism that Milgram overlooked participants’ perceptions.

Incongruities like apparent danger, but an unconcerned experimenter likely cued participants that no real harm would occur. Trust in Yale’s ethics reinforced this. Yet Milgram did not publish his assistant’s analysis showing participant skepticism correlated with disobedience rates and varied by condition.

Obedient participants were more skeptical that the learner was harmed. This selective reporting biased interpretations. Additional unreported findings further challenge Milgram’s conclusions.

This highlights issues around thoroughly and responsibly reporting all results, not just those fitting expectations. It shows how archival evidence makes Milgram’s study a contentious classic with questionable methods and conclusions.

Ethical Issues

What are the potential ethical concerns associated with Milgram’s research on obedience?

While not a “contribution to psychology” in the traditional sense, Milgram’s obedience experiments sparked significant debate about the ethics of psychological research.

Baumrind (1964) criticized the ethics of Milgram’s research as participants were prevented from giving their informed consent to take part in the study. 

Participants assumed the experiment was benign and expected to be treated with dignity.

As a result of studies like Milgram’s, the APA and BPS now require researchers to give participants more information before they agree to take part in a study.

The participants actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgram’s.

However, Milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths.”

Milgram also interviewed participants afterward to find out the effect of the deception. Apparently, 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment,” and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved.

Protection of participants 

Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many of the participants were visibly distressed (Baumrind, 1964).

Signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously, biting lips and digging fingernails into palms of hands. Three participants had uncontrollable seizures, and many pleaded to be allowed to stop the experiment.

Milgram described a businessman reduced to a “twitching stuttering wreck” (1963, p. 377),

In his defense, Milgram argued that these effects were only short-term. Once the participants were debriefed (and could see the confederate was OK), their stress levels decreased.

“At no point,” Milgram (1964) stated, “were subjects exposed to danger and at no point did they run the risk of injurious effects resulting from participation” (p. 849).

To defend himself against criticisms about the ethics of his obedience research, Milgram cited follow-up survey data showing that 84% of participants said they were glad they had taken part in the study.

Milgram used this to claim that the study caused no serious or lasting harm, since most participants retrospectively did not regret their involvement.

Yet archival accounts show many participants endured lasting distress, even trauma, refuting Milgram’s insistence the study caused only fleeting “excitement.” By not debriefing all, Milgram misled participants about the true risks involved (Perry, 2013).

However, Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.

Milgram debriefed all his participants straight after the experiment and disclosed the true nature of the experiment.

Participants were assured that their behavior was common, and Milgram also followed the sample up a year later and found no signs of any long-term psychological harm.

The majority of the participants (83.7%) said that they were pleased that they had participated, and 74% had learned something of personal importance.

Perry’s (2013) archival research found Milgram misrepresented debriefing – around 600 participants were not properly debriefed soon after the study, contrary to his claims. Many only learned no real shocks occurred when reading a mailed study report months later, which some may have not received.

Milgram likely misreported debriefing details to protect his credibility and enable future obedience research. This raises issues around properly informing and debriefing participants that connect to APA ethics codes developed partly in response to Milgram’s study.

Right to Withdrawal 

The BPS states that researchers should make it plain to participants that they are free to withdraw at any time (regardless of payment).

When expressing doubts, the experimenter assured them all was well. Trusting Yale scientists, many took the experimenter at his word that “no permanent tissue damage” would occur, and continued administering shocks despite reservations.

Did Milgram give participants an opportunity to withdraw? The experimenter gave four verbal prods which mostly discouraged withdrawal from the experiment:

• Please continue.
• The experiment requires that you continue.
• It is absolutely essential that you continue.
• You have no other choice, you must go on.

Milgram argued that they were justified as the study was about obedience, so orders were necessary.

Milgram pointed out that although the right to withdraw was made partially difficult, it was possible as 35% of participants had chosen to withdraw.

Replications

Direct replications have not been possible due to current ethical standards . However, several researchers have conducted partial replications and variations that aim to reproduce some aspects of Milgram’s methods ethically.

One important replication was conducted by Jerry Burger in 2009. Burger’s partial replication included several safeguards to protect participant welfare, such as screening out high-risk individuals, repeatedly reminding participants they could withdraw, and stopping at the 150-volt shock level. This was the point where Milgram’s participants first heard the learner’s protests.

As 79% of Milgram’s participants who went past 150 volts continued to the maximum 450 volts, Burger (2009) argued that 150 volts provided a reasonable estimate for obedience levels. He found 70% of participants continued to 150 volts, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s comparable condition.

Another replication by Thomas Blass (1999) examined whether obedience rates had declined over time due to greater public awareness of the experiments. Blass correlated obedience rates from replication studies between 1963 and 1985 and found no relationship between year and obedience level. He concluded that obedience rates have not systematically changed, providing evidence against the idea of “enlightenment effects”.

Some variations have explored the role of gender. Milgram found equal rates of obedience for male and female participants. Reviews have found most replications also show no gender difference, with a couple of exceptions (Blass, 1999). For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found lower obedience in female participants.

Partial replications have also examined situational factors. Having another person model defiance reduced obedience compared to a solo participant in one study, but did not eliminate it (Burger, 2009). The authority figure’s perceived expertise seems to be an influential factor (Blass, 1999). Replications have supported Milgram’s observation that stepwise increases in demands promote obedience.

Personality factors have been studied as well. Traits like high empathy and desire for control correlate with some minor early hesitation, but do not greatly impact eventual obedience levels (Burger, 2009). Authoritarian tendencies may contribute to obedience (Elms, 2009).

In sum, the partial replications confirm Milgram’s degree of obedience. Though ethical constraints prevent full reproductions, the key elements of his procedure seem to consistently elicit high levels of compliance across studies, samples, and eras. The replications continue to highlight the power of situational pressures to yield obedience.

Milgram (1963) Audio Clips

Below you can also hear some of the audio clips taken from the video that was made of the experiment. Just click on the clips below.

Why was the Milgram experiment so controversial?

The Milgram experiment was controversial because it revealed people’s willingness to obey authority figures even when causing harm to others, raising ethical concerns about the psychological distress inflicted upon participants and the deception involved in the study.

Would Milgram’s experiment be allowed today?

Milgram’s experiment would likely not be allowed today in its original form, as it violates modern ethical guidelines for research involving human participants, particularly regarding informed consent, deception, and protection from psychological harm.

Did anyone refuse the Milgram experiment?

Yes, in the Milgram experiment, some participants refused to continue administering shocks, demonstrating individual variation in obedience to authority figures. In the original Milgram experiment, approximately 35% of participants refused to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts, while 65% obeyed and delivered the 450-volt shock.

How can Milgram’s study be applied to real life?

Milgram’s study can be applied to real life by demonstrating the potential for ordinary individuals to obey authority figures even when it involves causing harm, emphasizing the importance of questioning authority, ethical decision-making, and fostering critical thinking in societal contexts.

Were all participants in Milgram’s experiments male?

Yes, in the original Milgram experiment conducted in 1961, all participants were male, limiting the generalizability of the findings to women and diverse populations.

Why was the Milgram experiment unethical?

The Milgram experiment was considered unethical because participants were deceived about the true nature of the study and subjected to severe emotional distress. They believed they were causing harm to another person under the instruction of authority.

Additionally, participants were not given the right to withdraw freely and were subjected to intense pressure to continue. The psychological harm and lack of informed consent violates modern ethical guidelines for research.

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority 1.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology ,  29 (5), 955-978.

Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine.  Theory & Psychology ,  25 (5), 551-563.

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64 , 1–11.

Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64 (1), 32–36.

Gibson, S. (2013). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309.

Gibson, S. (2017). Developing psychology’s archival sensibilities: Revisiting Milgram’s obedience’ experiments.  Qualitative Psychology ,  4 (1), 73.

Griggs, R. A., Blyler, J., & Jackson, S. L. (2020). Using research ethics as a springboard for teaching Milgram’s obedience study as a contentious classic.  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology ,  6 (4), 350.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2018). A truth that does not always speak its name: How Hollander and Turowetz’s findings confirm and extend the engaged followership analysis of harm-doing in the Milgram paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 292–300.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2016). Questioning authority: New perspectives on Milgram’s ‘obedience’ research and its implications for intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11 , 6–9.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Birney, M. E., Millard, K., & McDonald, R. (2015). ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54 , 55–83.

Kaplan, D. E. (1996). The Stanley Milgram papers: A case study on appraisal of and access to confidential data files. American Archivist, 59 , 288–297.

Kaposi, D. (2022). The second wave of critical engagement with Stanley Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’experiments: What did we learn?.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass ,  16 (6), e12667.

Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (5), 696–702.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67, 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19 , 848–852.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority . Human Relations, 18(1) , 57-76.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . Harpercollins.

Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on” Replicating Milgram”(Burger, 2009), American Psychologis t, 64 (1):20-27

Nicholson, I. (2011). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram’s “obedience to authority”. Theory & Psychology, 21 , 737–761.

Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in Milgram’s “obedience” laboratory. Theory & Psychology, 25 , 639–656.

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6 (4), 282-293.

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. C. (1968). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6 , 282–293.

Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments . New York, NY: The New Press.

Reicher, S., Haslam, A., & Miller, A. (Eds.). (2014). Milgram at 50: Exploring the enduring relevance of psychology’s most famous studies [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 70 (3), 393–602

Russell, N. (2014). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority “relationship condition”: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194–214

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society .

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd Edition) . Prentice Hall.

Further Reading

• The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology
• Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments
• Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?

Learning Check

Which is true regarding the Milgram obedience study?

• The aim was to see how obedient people would be in a situation where following orders would mean causing harm to another person.
• Participants were under the impression they were part of a learning and memory experiment.
• The “learners” in the study were actual participants who volunteered to be shocked as part of the experiment.
• The “learner” was an actor who was in on the experiment and never actually received any real shocks.
• Although the participant could not see the “learner”, he was able to hear him clearly through the wall
• The study was directly influenced by Milgram’s observations of obedience patterns in post-war Europe.
• The experiment was designed to understand the psychological mechanisms behind war crimes committed during World War II.
• The Milgram study was universally accepted in the psychological community, and no ethical concerns were raised about its methodology.
• When Milgram’s experiment was repeated in a rundown office building in Bridgeport, the percentage of the participants who fully complied with the commands of the experimenter remained unchanged.
• The experimenter (authority figure) delivered verbal prods to encourage the teacher to continue, such as ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’.
• Over 80% of participants went on to deliver the maximum level of shock.
• Milgram sent participants questionnaires after the study to assess the effects and found that most felt no remorse or guilt, so it was ethical.
• The aftermath of the study led to stricter ethical guidelines in psychological research.
• The study emphasized the role of situational factors over personality traits in determining obedience.

Answers : Items 3, 8, 9, and 11 are the false statements.

Short Answer Questions

• Briefly explain the results of the original Milgram experiments. What did these results prove?
• List one scenario on how an authority figure can abuse obedience principles.
• List one scenario on how an individual could use these principles to defend their fellow peers.
• In a hospital, you are very likely to obey a nurse. However, if you meet her outside the hospital, for example in a shop, you are much less likely to obey. Using your knowledge of how people resist pressure to obey, explain why you are less likely to obey the nurse outside the hospital.
• Describe the shock instructions the participant (teacher) was told to follow when the victim (learner) gave an incorrect answer.
• State the lowest voltage shock that was labeled on the shock generator.
• What would likely happen if Milgram’s experiment included a condition in which the participant (teacher) had to give a high-level electric shock for the first wrong answer?

Group Activity

Gather in groups of three or four to discuss answers to the short answer questions above.

For question 2, review the different scenarios you each came up with. Then brainstorm on how these situations could be flipped.

For question 2, discuss how an authority figure could instead empower those below them in the examples your groupmates provide.

For question 3, discuss how a peer could do harm by using the obedience principles in the scenarios your groupmates provide.

Essay Topic

• What’s the most important lesson of Milgram’s Obedience Experiments? Fully explain and defend your answer.
• Milgram selectively edited his film of the obedience experiments to emphasize obedient behavior and minimize footage of disobedience. What are the ethical implications of a researcher selectively presenting findings in a way that fits their expected conclusions?

Related Articles

Soft Determinism In Psychology

Branches of Psychology

Social Action Theory (Weber): Definition & Examples

Famous Experiments , Social Science

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

Adult Attachment , Personality , Psychology , Relationships

Attachment Styles and How They Affect Adult Relationships

Learning Theories , Psychology , Social Science

Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Obedience — Exploring The Nature Of People’s Obedience To Authority

Exploring The Nature of People’s Obedience to Authority

• Categories: Authority Obedience

About this sample

Words: 2397 |

12 min read

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 2397 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2133 words

1 pages / 976 words

3 pages / 1473 words

2 pages / 834 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Obedience

In America today, individualism is at the core of American culture. In America, the ideal is for all people to be able to make their own decisions freely. We teach that individualism gives you the freedom to pave your path, make [...]

Conformity and Obedience form the basis of every Public Service. Without them the internal discipline and hierarchal system wouldn’t be able to work effectively. These Public Services require their Officers to conform to the [...]

In recent history, Hitler was able to confirm many people into believing as he did: the Aryan race was superior and those who were not Aryan needed to be exterminated, particularly the Jews. It makes one wonder how Hitler was [...]

Communication serves as the cornerstone of human interaction, facilitating the exchange of thoughts, feelings, and ideas. There are different types of communication, each bearing unique characteristics and implications for [...]

In an age in which promiscuity, free living and women's liberation were not the catch phrases they have grown to become in this modern era, the title character of Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders lives a life of sexual independence [...]

Whilst some discoveries allow an individual to further confirm their views on their world and themselves, others may lead to moral questioning or re-evaluation evoked by their newfound perspective. These discoveries in [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Obeying Authority: Should We Trust Them or Not?

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2022
• Volume 57 , pages 878–887, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Daniel Walker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9369-6953 1  

4687 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Researchers claim impartiality when conducting research and suggest their motives are to improve knowledge. However, when investigating the history of research into obedience to authority, propaganda and power-knowledge are present as well as emotional ties that affect the motives and methods of investigating these areas. With published work from US President Woodrow Wilson proposing obeying authority is necessary to functional societies and the Vatican displaying power-knowledge when censoring heliocentric views, it seems some researchers have ulterior motives. Although researchers like Piaget and Milgram appear to be more integral researchers, Piaget like many utilised observational methods that lack replicability, and Milgram’s family history with the events of the Holocaust pose additional issues. Therefore, considering the General Demarcation Problem, it is difficult to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, given all researchers will consider the research they conduct in the present day to be the correct way of doing so. However, adopting a critical mind as to who is conducting the research and the wider implications of who it serves and who it does not serve, would be beneficial for academia and wider society. This comes in a time where many reject the science of critical world issues such as COVID-19 and climate change.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world

Scientific Truth in a Post-Truth Era: A Review*

Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Philosopher Imre Lakatos (Lakatos & Feyerabend, 1999 ) once reminisced on challenging Marxists on their strong views. Questioning what type of event would have to occur to alter their political and economic thoughts, stunned silence was received. This could be an example of the occurrence of cognitive dissonance, that may decelerate intellectual progression. This not only shapes how the world is perceived but the ways in which researchers attempt to gain further understanding. Just as Marxists were stunned at the thought of a world where their political beliefs would not remain constant, the same can be said for research methodologies. Khun ( 1962 ) suggested this was because scientists work within a rigid framework whereby researchers share values and beliefs, or paradigms, and described this as ‘normal science’. People have attempted to increase understanding of the world for over two thousand years however, their methods alter significantly. A crucial issue is that many researchers presume that present day methods are the best way to improve knowledge highlighting they are not exempt from cognitive dissonance. Obedience to authority has been adopted by the psychological community as a popular topic of research interest. However, the reasons as to why this area of research has been investigated differ, and therefore the conclusions ought to be inferred with caution. With present-day examples of disobeying authority such as infringement of government guidelines regarding COVID-19, this area is more pertinent than ever.

Power of research in the early 17th -20th century

The first psychology laboratory was established in 1879 at Leipzig University. It was from then, that psychology became the dominant discipline when examining obedience to authority. Before this, many recorded documents that can be accessed provide somewhat romantic philosophical notions of the benefits of obeying authority. Whilst some papers identify obedience to authority as being an essential cog for a healthy functional society (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ) others deem it imperative for successful winning sports teams (Gettell, 1917 ). Without empirical evidence or data to examine, the question that once again derives is why was this propaganda published in academic books and journals of the time?

The fundamental explanation is power-knowledge. Michel Foucault is considered one of the most influential researchers regarding this phenomenon. With a background in both philosophy and psychology, Foucault was a respected researcher and claimed that power and knowledge should not be treated as two separate entities but are in-fact related. That is, knowledge is always an exercise of power and power is always a function of knowledge. Foucault ( 1980 ) used sexuality and the church as an example of power-knowledge stating that between the 17th and 20th century, the church produced knowledge of individuals’ sexual desires through confessions. He argued that through confessing these sexual desires, people began to develop a sexual identity that had not been present prior to this, an identity that, in the view of the church, had to be controlled. With biblical references that suggest certain sexual desires, such as homosexuality to be inappropriate and the church having a great influence over societal implications, the church could now use this knowledge of sexual desires provided through the confessions to control the populations’ sexual activity and perceptions of different sexual preferences.

Although the inception of Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge (1980) was only derived in the late 20th century, there are examples throughout history whereby knowledge has been utilised to not only obtain power but also to retain it. As well as the history of sexuality that Foucault ( 1980 ) highlights, the roman catholic church has also been responsible for other societal control over the development of knowledge. This is evident in the Galileo affair during the early 17th century, where the Roman Catholic inquisition tried infamous astronomer Galileo Galilei for his support of heliocentrism. Living in a region under predominant Roman Catholic influence, and during a time where the Church of England was forming, it can be considered brave of Galileo to attempt to reinterpret the Bible with his astronomical observations and heliocentric conclusions (Langford, 1992 ). Having made his views clear, however, Galileo was ordered by Pope Paul V to abandon these notions that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun as they oppose holy scripture (Finocchiaro, 2014 ). For ten years Galileo obliged, until the election of a new Pope that had condemned his earlier discipline from the church. The Church’s elitist authoritarianism towards Galileo and heliocentrism at this time had desperate undertones with a fear of increased knowledge leading to secularisation and in turn a forfeit of power. Censoring the work of Galileo, the Church controlled the knowledge that was available to the public at that time. Only allowing publications and merit to those that supported the biblical, geocentric views of the Vatican in turn led to the retention of power in this period.

This is also evident with the first philosophical notions of obedience to authority in the early 20th century. As highlighted, prior to any objective psychological examinations of this behaviour, there were various non-empirical suggestions that obedience is necessary for a productive functional society (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ). Power-knowledge provides a good explanation as to why this propaganda would be published in trusted sources. Wilson ( 1911 ), soon to become President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, referred to obedience to authority as being integral to a functional society with the paper being published just two years before his presidential election victory, and whilst governor of New Jersey. Published in The American Political Science Review, a leading political journal within the country, this could be construed as a form of propaganda, to develop power over the masses. With the notion that individuals are led to believe that the power of the few over the many is to their advantage (Lakatos & Feyerabend, 1999 ), there are undertones that the references of obedience to authority are utilised with similar motivations of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1600’s. However, in the interests of furthering research, fortunately a more epistemological and systematic method of examining obedience to authority was adopted in the 20th century.

Piaget’s impact on objectively examining obedience to authority

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget originally had a background in philosophy due to his godfather’s urgings to study the fields of philosophy and logic (Snowman & Biehler, 2003 ). It was only upon emigrating to France in the 1920’s where his interest in psychoanalysis developed, accompanied by experimental methods. His work consisted predominantly of the cognitive development of children which led to studying infant morality (Piaget, 1932 ). One of Piaget’s basic principles regarding morality in children was the creation of their own conceptions of the world, in that they are not genetic or adopted through social observation of adults. That is, infants develop their own understanding of justice, fairness and equality based on how they perceive the world and through social interaction with peers, supporting Kantian theory (Kant, 1999 ). Interestingly, Piaget ( 1932 ) reported that when obedience to authority and equality are brought into conflict, the child is always in favour of obeying the authoritative figure of the adult and disregarding their own moral compass. This work can be considered a pioneering aspect of literature into obedience to authority that has led to an abundance of psychological research throughout the 20th and into the 21st century (Brief et al., 2000 ; Gridley & Jenkins, 2017 ; Laupa & Turiel, 1986 ; Milgram, 1965 ).

Piaget’s original claims were based on a relatively small sample of French children in a controlled experimental condition, and therefore it would not be plausible to accept the notion that all children’s moral reasoning is heteronomous before ten years of age where it then becomes autonomous, despite others reporting similar findings (Lerner, 1937 ). Instead, Piaget can be credited for providing the basis for further research such as Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development (Kohlberg, 1969 ) which has been widely accepted by the psychological community (Malinowski & Smith, 1985 ; Murphy & Gilligan, 1980 ). While critics argue that both Piaget and Kohlberg severely underestimated children and their cognitive processes (Leonard & Archer, 1989 ; Narvaez, 2005 ; Rubin & Trotter, 1977 ), suggesting that stages of moral development occur earlier than five years of age (Cushman et al., 2013 ; Gray et al., 2004 ), the pioneering work of Piaget provided a precedent of further research into an unscathed area of psychology. Following research into children, it was of interest to many whether urges to obey authority would continue into adulthood, a decision possibly influenced by real life events (Mastroianni, 2002 ).

Milgram, World War Two, and the Holocaust

The most prominent study regarding obedience to authority (Blass, 1999 ) is Milgram’s experiment (Milgram, 1963 ) which is considered one of the most popular in psychology (Slater et al., 2006 ). Winning the AAAS Prize for Behavioural Science Research in 1964 for his work on social aspects of obedience, Milgram’s reputation was projected to soar. Ethical debates that surrounded his work led to Milgram failing to secure a tenure position at Harvard University, despite the controversial experiment taking place at Yale. However, disregarding the ethical implications, this study supports the conclusions of Piaget’s earlier work, finding that although the sample were aware from a very young age that hurting others is against their moral code, they abandon these beliefs when following the instructions of an authoritative figure (Milgram, 1963 ).

Scientific research often follows the normal science structure that an idea forms the basis of a research question which is then tested and reported on (Khun, 1962 ). It would appear this is the case with Milgram wanting to study obedience to authority, following on from the work of Piaget ( 1932 ) and then McGranahan ( 1946 ) who examined the differences between obedience to authority in German and American samples. However, raised in a Jewish household, to refugee parents, Milgram was directly affected by the Holocaust. Surviving family members that bore concentration camp tattoos even took sanction at their new home in New York during the second world war (Fermaglich, 2007 ). Additionally, during adulthood, the worldwide media coverage of the Adolf Eichmann trial persisted. The former Nazi concentration camp leader had been charged with fifteen crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity in 1960 (Arendt, 1994 ). Two years later Eichmann was found guilty and subsequently executed, however observers of the trial reported Eichmann’s remarkable normalcy whilst attempting to hide behind the fact that he had committed no crime and was simply following orders. It was insisted that he and others were bound by an oath of loyalty to Hitler which was the same superior orders defence used by many defendants in the Nuremberg trials a decade earlier (Cesarani, 2005 ). The aftermath of the execution led to increased media coverage and renewed interest of the second world war and the holocaust (Cesarani, 2005 ) and Milgram was no exception. There were even mentions of Nazi behaviour in several pieces of his work into obedience (Milgram, 1963 ; 1965 ). Although initial ideas form a significant basis of psychological research, how much influence do real life events have on researchers?

• General Demarcation Problem

The rationale behind Milgram’s cognition raises questions about the general demarcation problem. Where previously there were philosophical propogandist notions of obedience to authority being essential to a functional society (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ), following Piaget’s example, Milgram was now willing to utilise more testable techniques to examine obedience. The general demarcation problem is the debate between science and non-science and is considered one of the most important issues in the philosophy of science and therefore social science (Resnik, 2000 ). There are various criterion of the demarcation problem including, logical positivism. Logical positivism supports verificationism and asserts that only statements that can be verified through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful. Popper ( 1963 ) added that to be considered a science, the theories and hypotheses must be testable (Resnik, 2000 ). This was referred to as falsifiability, another branch of the demarcation problem that opposes verificationism (Thagard & Zalta, 2008 ).

From this, it can be considered phenomenological that obedience to authority is researched today. The non-empirical suggestions in the early 20th century (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ) had tones of propaganda and therefore would be considered as ‘non-science’ if taking a Popperian standpoint, highlighting the demarcation problem among this area of research. Following this, Piaget’s ( 1932 ) observations of children’s responses to obeying authority and ignoring their own moral code could be said to agree with the viewpoint of logical positivism. The conclusions that when obeying authority and equality are brought into conflict, children are always in favour of obeying the authoritative figure and disregarding their own moral beliefs, can be considered as logical empiricism. The empirical observation of the researchers provides a cognitive meaning to the statements, in this case conclusions, of the research.

Milgram’s study into obedience to authority (1963) can be considered, unlike Piaget’s work of children’s cognitions, an example of falsifiability. The fundamental difference between logical positivism and falsifiability is that the latter has the capacity for theory to be proven wrong. As Milgram reported in his study the sample used and the exact methodological procedure of the experiment this allows for replication and in turn criticism of the findings, something that was impossible with Piaget’s observations. This has become evident with numerous studies highlighting the lack of validity of Milgram’s research (De Vos, 2009 ; Fjellman, 1976 ) with some even suggesting the results were fabricated (Perry, 2013 ). From this, the demarcation problem makes it difficult to differentiate between science and pseudoscience. Where most would agree that there is a clear distinction between the work of Wilson ( 1911 ) and Tuttle ( 1943 ) being pseudoscience and Piaget ( 1932 ) and Milgram ( 1963 ) being science, it is difficult to suggest logical positivism should not be considered as scientific as other criterion of the demarcation problem exist such as falsifiability of data.

Why conduct the research, who does it serve, and who does it not serve?

From the literature examined, the reasons behind conducting research vary. Whereby some researchers share the paradigm that the sole purpose of research is driven by the philosophy of advancing science and improving knowledge (Eisenberg, 1987 ; Owen et al., 2012 ), it is evident that the driving force behind some research alters. From the work of Wilson ( 1911 ) we can deduct that there is a political agenda involved, utilising the platform he established during his academic career during his presidential campaign. In contrast, the work of Milgram taken on face value could be considered normal science (Khun, 1962 ) as it can be seen to progress former aspects of the literature (McGranahan, 1946 ). However, there is the argument that Milgram’s real-life experiences question the motives and positionality of this research. Milgram’s research, although valuable in its findings into the human cognitive function of obedience (Milgram, 1965 ), can be questioned for providing former Nazi’s with an excuse for their behaviour during the holocaust as well as diminishing responsibility. Having considered the reasons for conducting research and who it may serve, there is cause to acknowledge those that it may not be beneficial to. As Germany and former Nazi’s now had the excuse of an agentic state (Nissani, 1990 ), this research can be considered as not serving victims of the holocaust by defending the perpetrators, something that Milgram was heavily criticised for given his background (Mastroianni, 2002 ).

Present-Day Implications

It is important to be aware of science and pseudoscience, and how this could influence the masses. This is especially relevant in the present day, given the speed at which misinformation is spread online, from climate change (Allagaier, 2019) to COVID-19 (Li et al., 2020 ). It is vital that the present-day public do not succumb to the cognitive dissonance errors of previous generations, and to be aware of how people in positions of power, are able to use different sources to push their agenda. Rather, a critical approach to research should be adopted, understanding the role that power-knowledge could have, the reasons for the research being conducted, and who is conducting it. This is particularly relevant to anti-vax sentiment and COVID-19 belief with obeying authority.

The General Demarcation Problem is particularly pertinent in the information and misinformation regarding COVID-19. Interestingly, logical positivism has been adopted by many during the COVID-19 pandemic when looking to scientific knowledge to inform their behaviour. However, this has been threatened as many have not subscribed to this, actively opposing scientific knowledge in fear of propaganda from worldwide governments and the mainstream media. This may have been exacerbated by political shortfalls such as Downing Street parties by the United Kingdom government as well as the former Health Secretary disobeying the guidance that they had set themselves. Despite conference briefings including Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty, perhaps the political undertones of their delivery cast doubt into some minds regarding the validity of these claims. Therefore, there is anti-vaccine sentiment that questions what is science and pseudoscience regarding COVID-19 due to political inclusion within science. Interestingly, this demonstrates a clear shift in obedience towards authority as Wilson ( 1911 ) received little backlash from his academic publication. By contrast, the now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom receives large criticism and scrutiny from the British public on social media websites such as Twitter.

Many also oppose climate change due to authority informing them of its dangers and encouraging behaviour change within the general population. The COVID-19 lockdowns and climate change issues share a similarity in their hardship. Many report the governmental restrictions imposed due to the onset of the pandemic as being extremely difficult to their mental health (Banks & Xu, 2020 ). Additionally, many also suggest that climate change is an extremely difficult issue to address due to its cumulative effect (Clerici et al., 2019 ; Murray et al., 2015 ). The similarity here may be their difficulty. Although those that refute COVID-19 or climate change may cite reasons such as political power and restricting societal freedoms as their motivations, it could be that they are afraid of the science. Rather than accepting the science as true and taking the hard steps in tackling huge societal hardships like the two examples above, many may find it easier to reject the science, regardless of its rigour.

Here we develop a new underpinning of the General Demarcation Problem. Not only is there the issue of determining the difference between science and pseudoscience, but there is also the issue of the public’s right to reject the science. While in a democratic society everyone has the right to their own opinion, this liberty to reject scientific evidence has huge implications on science itself, health, and the future of our planet. The cognitive dissonance that exacerbated the Marxists stunned silence when Lakatos confronted their beliefs may be a key reason for challenging scientific evidence for COVID-19 and climate change.

Conclusions

When reviewing the literature as well as various historical events, it is fair to conclude that ideas are rarely novel in the context of research in social science and obedience to authority is no exception. This questions Kuhn’s (1962) notion of ‘normal science’ as it is evident that propaganda was utilised in part of the early 20th century, highlighting a different motive for conducting research. As well as this, the link between knowledge and power becomes clearer with various examples highlighting the association between the two entities and the ways in which they have been manipulated. With the links between power and knowledge proving increasingly evident, this amplifies how power can also determine what society believes to be true, and in turn censoring and controlling the knowledge of the masses (Lakatos & Feyerabend, 1999 ). The general demarcation problem and truth can also be perceived as interacting bodies as the constant evolution of what is and what is not a science can develop power by the disregarding of another. It is interesting to examine the ways that obedience to authority has been shaped in the literature over the past 100 years. As many modern-day researchers would stand by Kuhn’s suggestion of ‘normal science’ it is noteworthy that the inception of obedience to authority within testable research was inspired by real life events. Additionally, the role of power-knowledge and obedience to authority may be more relevant than ever, given the impact that this may have on current issues such as compliance to COVID-19 restrictions and climate change action.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Arendt, H. (1994). Some questions of moral philosophy.Social research,739–764

Banks, J., & Xu, X. (2020). The mental health effects of the first two months of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Fiscal Studies , 41(3), 685–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12239

Article   Google Scholar  

Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram Paradigm After 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know About Obedience to Authority 1. Journal of applied social psychology , 29(5), 955–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x

Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , 81(1), 72–97. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2867

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cesarani, D. (2005). Eichmann: His life and crimes . Random House

Clerici, N., Cote-Navarro, F., Escobedo, F. J., Rubiano, K., & Villegas, J. C. (2019). Spatio temporal and cumulative effects of land use-land cover and climate change on two ecosystem services in the Colombian Andes. Science of the Total Environment , 685, 1181–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.275

Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent based moral judgment. Cognition , 127(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.008

De Vos, J. (2009). Now that you know, how do you feel? The Milgram experiment and psychologization. Annual Review of Critical Psychology , 7, 223–246

Google Scholar  

Eisenberg, R. S. (1987). Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale LJ , 97, 177. https://doi.org/10.2307/796481

Fermaglich, K. (2007). American dreams and Nazi nightmares: Early Holocaust consciousness and liberal America, 1957–1965. UPNE . https://doi.org/10.26812/9781584655497

Finocchiaro, M. A. (2014). The Trial of Galileo: Essential Documents . Hackett Publishing

Fjellman, S. M. (1976). Natural and Unnatural Decision-Making: A Critique of Decision Theory. Ethos , 4(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1976.4.1.02a00040

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 . Pantheon

Gettell, R. G. (1917). III. The Value of Football. American Physical Education Review , 22(3), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/23267224.1917.10651485

Gray, R. F., Indurkhya, A., & McCormick, M. C. (2004). Prevalence, stability, and predictors of clinically significant behavior problems in low birth weight children at 3, 5, and 8 years of age. Pediatrics , 114(3), 736–743. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2003-1150-L

Gridley, M., & Jenkins, W. J. (2017). An Analysis of Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View . Macat Library

Kant, I. (1999). Practical philosophy . Cambridge University Press

Khun, T. (1962). Paradigm shift

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. Handbook of socialization theory and research , 347, 480

Lakatos, I., & Feyerabend, P. (1999). For and against method: including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence . University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226467030.001.0001

Langford, J. J. (1992). Galileo, science, and the church . University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.7315

Laupa, M., & Turiel, E. (1986). Children’s conceptions of adult and peer authority. Child Development , 405–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130596

Leonard, S. P., & Archer, J. (1989). A naturalistic investigation of gender constancy in three to four-year‐old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 7(4), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00810.x

Lerner, E. (1937). The problem of perspective in moral reasoning. American journal of sociology , 43(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1086/217683

Li, H. O. Y., Bailey, A., Huynh, D., & Chan, J. (2020). YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation? BMJ global health , 5(5), e002604. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002604

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malinowski, C. I., & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 49(4), 1016–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.1016

Mastroianni, G. R. (2002). Milgram and the Holocaust: A reexamination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology , 22(2), 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091220

McGranahan, D. V. (1946). A comparison of social attitudes among American and German youth. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 41(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060875

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations , 18(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800105

Murphy, J. M., & Gilligan, C. (1980). Moral development in late adolescence and adulthood: A critique and reconstruction of Kohlberg’s theory. Human development , 23(2), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1159/000272541

Murray, C. C., Agbayani, S., & Ban, N. C. (2015). Cumulative effects of planned industrial development and climate change on marine ecosystems. Global Ecology and Conservation , 4, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.06.003

Narvaez, D. (2005). The neo-Kohlbergian tradition and beyond: Schemas, expertise, and character. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 51, p. 119)

Nissani, M. (1990). A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram’s observations on obedience to authority. American Psychologist , 45(12), 1345–1385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1384

Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and public policy , 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Perry, G. (2013). Deception and illusion in Milgram’s accounts of the obedience experiments. Theoretical & Applied Ethics , 2(2), 79–92

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral development of the child. Kegan Paul, London

Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. 1963a London . UK Routledge

Resnik, D. B. (2000). A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 31(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039- 3681(00)00004 – 2

Rubin, K. H., & Trotter, K. T. (1977). Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Scale: Some methodological considerations. Developmental Psychology , 13(5), 535–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.535

Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C. … Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS one , 1(1), e39. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039

Snowman, J., & Biehler, R. (2003). Psychology applied to teaching . Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Thagard, P., & Zalta, E. N. (2008).Cognitive science Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

Tuttle, H. S. (1943). Obedience: A necessary convenience. The Elementary School Journal , 43(6), 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1086/458180

Wilson, W. (1911). The Law and the Facts: Presidential Address, Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review , 5 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1945988

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom

Daniel Walker

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Walker .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Walker, D. Obeying Authority: Should We Trust Them or Not?. Integr. psych. behav. 57 , 878–887 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09691-7

Download citation

Accepted : 09 April 2022

Published : 22 April 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09691-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Power-knowledge
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Obedience

Importance Of Obedience To Authority

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Vegetarianism

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Concept of Obedience in Psychology

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Shereen Lehman, MS, is a healthcare journalist and fact checker. She has co-authored two books for the popular Dummies Series (as Shereen Jegtvig).

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

• Obedience vs. Conformity
• Milgram’s Experiments

Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment

Factors that impact obedience.

• Why It Is Important

Obedience is a form of social influence that involves acting on the orders of an authority figure. It often involves actions a person would not have taken unless they were directed to do so by someone of authority or influence.

To understand obedience, it is important to also understand how it differs from compliance and conformity . Compliance involves changing your behavior at the request of another person, while conformity consists in altering your behavior to go along with the rest of the group.

Obedience involves altering your behavior because an authority figure has told you to do so.

Obedience vs. Conformity: How They Differ

Obedience is an essential concept in psychology. The question of why people obey others, its impact on society, and the factors that impact obedience are essential in understanding social behavior and social influence.  However, obedience must be distinguished from other types of social influence, including conformity.

Obedience differs from conformity in three key ways:

• Obedience involves an order ; conformity involves a request.
• Obedience is obeying someone of a higher status ; conformity is going along with people of equal status.
• Obedience relies on social power ; conformity relies on the need to be socially accepted.

Where obedience relies on direct orders, the perceived status and power of the person giving those orders, conformity is more about fitting in with the group. People obey because they are commanded to, but conform because they want to gain approval from their peers.

Milgram’s Obedience Experiments

During the 1950s, a psychologist Stanley Milgram became intrigued with the conformity experiments performed by Solomon Asch . Asch's work had demonstrated that people could easily be swayed to conform to group pressure, but Milgram wanted to see just how far people would be willing to go.

The trial of Adolf Eichmann, who had planned and managed the mass deportation of Jews during World War II, helped spark Milgram’s interest in obedience.

Throughout the trial, Eichmann suggested that he was simply following orders. He claimed that he felt no guilt for his role in the mass murders because he had only been doing what his superiors requested and he had played no role in the decision to exterminate the captives.

Milgram's Question

After the horrors of the Holocaust, some people, such as Eichmann, explained their participation in the atrocities by suggesting they were doing as they were commanded.

Milgram had set out to explore the question, "Are Germans different?" In other words, he wondered if perhaps there were some factors at work that had made German citizens obey orders more than others might. He soon discovered, however, that many people are surprisingly obedient to authority.

Milgram wanted to know—would people really harm another person if they were ordered to by an authority figure? Just how powerful is the pressure to obey?

Milgram's Results

Milgram’s studies involved placing participants in a room and directing them to deliver electrical shocks to a "learner" located in another room. Unbeknownst to the participant, the person supposedly receiving the shocks was actually in on the experiment and was merely acting out responses to imaginary shocks.

Surprisingly, Milgram found that 65% of participants were willing to deliver the maximum level of shocks on the experimenter's orders.

Recent Criticisms Cast Doubt on Milgram's Findings

Milgram's experiments have long been criticized as unethical, but more recent findings have further complicated the legacy of his research. After examining experimental archives, researchers found that participants in the famous study were often coerced into delivering shocks, which has significant implications for the study's final results.  

While 65% of the participants followed orders, it is essential to note that the statistics only apply to one study variation. In other trials, fewer people were willing to go through with the shocks, and in some cases, every participant refused to follow orders.

Modern Replications

Despite the problems with Milgram's original study, some researchers have been able to replicate his findings. In 2009, researchers partially replicated Milgram's study, but with a top shock of 150 volts. The study found that obedience rates were only slightly lower than those originally reported by Milgram.

Another 2017 replication conducted by researcher in Poland found that 90% of people were willing to go to the highest voltage level.

While Milgram's study had problems, subsequent research has suggested that people are surprisingly willing to obey orders.

Milgram’s controversial experiments generated a great deal of interest in the psychology of obedience. During the early 1970s, social psychologist Philip Zimbardo staged an exploration into the study of prisoners and prison life.

Zimbardo's Experiment

He set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford University psychology department and assigned his participants to play the roles of either prisoners or guards, with Zimbardo himself acting as the prison warden.

According to the researchers, the study had to be discontinued after a mere six days even though it was initially slated to last two weeks. Why did the researchers end the experiment so early? Because the participants had become so involved in their roles, the guards utilized authoritarian techniques to gain the obedience of the prisoners.

The study's authors suggested that the guards even subjected the prisoners to psychological abuse, harassment, and physical torture.

The results of the Stanford Prison Experiment are often used to demonstrate how easily people are influenced by characteristics of the roles and situations they are cast in, but Zimbardo also suggested that environmental factors play a role in how prone people are to obey authority.

Contemporary Criticisms

Like Milgram's experiments, Zimbardo's experiment has not fared well under more recent analysis. In addition to the long-noted ethical problems with the study, a more recent analysis of the study's methods has revealed serious issues with the experiment's design, methods, procedures, and authenticity.

Participants in the study reportedly faked their responses to leave early. Others reported amplifying their behaviors to help give the experimenters the results they were looking for. Critics suggest that the study lacks scientific merit and credibility due to these notable problems with its procedures.

A variety of individual and social factors can impact the likelihood that a person will obey a leader. Some factors that might play a role include:

• Personality characteristics : Certain personality traits, including conscientiousness and agreeableness, have been linked to greater obedience to authority.
• Psychological distance : You may be more likely to engage in obedience to authority if the effects of your obedience feel distant, abstract, or unconnected to your life.
• Ambiguity or lack of information : In ambiguous situations, a person may be more likely to obey someone who seems to have more information than they do.
• Fear of consequences : Obedience often happens because people fear the consequences of disobedience. Children often obey partners or teachers, for example, because they fear punishment or losing privileges if they disobey.

Understanding the Psychology of Obedience

Recognizing the power of obedience can help shed light on why people sometimes follow the orders of an authority figure, even if it violates their own personal beliefs or morals. Helping leaders understand their power in social situations can also help them use it more effectively and responsibly.

Building this understanding may also help people better recognize abuses of power and find ways to better promote responsible, ethical behavior.

Stangor C, Jhangiani R, Tarry H.  Principles of Social Psychology . Victoria: BC campus Open Textbook Project; 2014.

American Psychological Association. Obeying and resisting malevolent orders .

Milgram S.  Obedience to Authority: an Experimental View . New York: Harper & Row; 1974.

Perry G.  Deception and illusion in Milgram's accounts of the obedience experiments .  Theory Appl Ethics . 2013;2(2):79-92.

Burger JM. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today ? Am Psychol . 2009;64(1):1-11. doi:10.1037/a0010932

Doliński D, Grzyb T, Folwarczny M, et al. Would you deliver an electric shock in 2015? Obedience in the experimental paradigm developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 years following the original studies . Social Psychological and Personality Science . 2017;8(8):927-933. doi:10.1177/1948550617693060

American Psychological Association. Demonstrating the Power of Social Situations via a Simulated Prison Experiment.

Blum B.  The lifespan of a lie .  Medium .

Le Texier T.  Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment .  American Psychologist . 2019;74(7):823-839. doi:10.1037/amp0000401

Bègue L, Beauvois JL, Courbet D, Oberlé D, Lepage J, Duke AA. Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm .  J Pers . 2015;83(3):299-306. doi:10.1111/jopy.12104

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Ethics Defined UT Star Icon

Obedience to Authority

Obedience to Authority is the tendency people have to try to comply with superiors’ wishes, even when to do so conflicts with their own moral judgment.

Obedience to authority is the tendency people have to try to please those in charge.

Psychological evidence indicates that people tend to respect and follow those whom they perceive to have legitimate authority. This can lead to trouble if it causes people to fail to exercise their own independent ethical judgment.

Most people can anticipate their superiors’ desires and may act to please them even without being explicitly asked. For example, when Toshiba needed to inflate its earnings, implicit pressure from top officers was sufficient to induce division managers to misreport their earnings.

Likewise, when Lance Armstrong, leader of his cycling team, signaled that the team needed to dope in order to successfully compete, his supporting riders quickly complied.

So, a willingness to follow instructions is generally a good thing. But blind obedience to those in charge can have unfortunate consequences when leaders lack ethical conviction themselves.

Related Terms

Behavioral Ethics

Behavioral Ethics studies why and how people make the choices that they do.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Law

Obedience To Authority Essay Example

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Law , Authority , Constitution , Development , Security , Politics , Management , Government

Words: 1500

Published: 03/13/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

The presence of power signifies authority over a given territorial regime. Government plays a significant role over its citizens at any given time, the US government is divided into two; the national and state government, this is due to the presence and sovereignty of the constitution (Stuart, 5). This paper aims at evaluating the range of responsibilities and power that the state government has over its citizens. The citizens are obliged to owe unlimited obedience and respect to the state government, this is due to the scope of responsibilities that it exercises over its citizens. The state government of the US is tasked with the following responsibilities; - Establish local governments. The state government is majorly tasked with the responsibility of putting in place local governments that will aid in carrying out feasible activities that promote the welfare of a given state in the subject. local governments comprise mainly of local arms that help in exercising the length of authority that the state government is tasked with. - Taking measure of public health and safety. Security is one of the significant factors that every single citizen is tasked to enjoy it freely. State government ought to provide timely security and an environment free from any security threats to both the merchants and the citizens in general. Promoting healthy living standards is also another critical responsibility of the state government. This aids in developing utmost cohesion in the welfare of the citizens. - Conduct intrastate business. The state governments are mainly tasked with ensuring that all the businesses within the territories of the state are guarded at all times. The welfare of the intrastate business determines the extent at which the economic growth of a given state will thrive. This is essential for enhancing positive business practices that will lead to favorable competitive advantage among business owners. - Issue licenses. This is the actual responsibility of every state within the US. Licenses that permit every given individual to undertake business within any given state is favored by streamlined policies that are put in place. License gives a given individual the authority to undertake different scope of businesses within the state territory (Kula, 92). This is an actual example where power plays a significant role and obedience towards authority must be enhanced at all times. - Ratification of amendments to the constitution. Cross-checking of all the amendments that are being channeled into the underlying constitution is ratified by all the states across the US. This allows collective responsibility among the states within the US in safeguarding the interests of the public. - The state government is conditioned to exert powers to the constitution which does not necessarily disallow the national government from using the powers in subject. The state government is usually tasked with the responsibility of exerting power to the available constitution through a system of amendments. This system does not necessarily prohibit the national government from using the available state powers that are available in the constitution. The above responsibilities outline the extent at which the state governments expatriate its sole responsibility for its citizens. This represents a system of authority that is put in place in order to necessitate all the tasks that relate to the welfare of the state residents. This exemplifies power that is put in place; hence, obedience is incumbent thing for every resident within the state. It is however hypothetical to realize that the presence of all these responsibilities is to enhance both intra and interstate cohesion in terms of development and progress. This is the main system of authority in place in every given state within the US. They enhance the security and progression development among state objects. State government exercises its authority through the several amendments that are available in the constitution, through this, it is able to retain and refrain every single citizen from criminal minded to development oriented (Rosenstein et al. 188). It is evident to note that, the state governments use a system of independent security system to enhance the overall security across the state organs. The sole purpose of this independent system of security enhances efficient security among the residents within the state. It uses the available power that is vested on them by the legitimacy of the constitution to exercise maximum control over the residents within the state. This helps to prevent and avert possible instances of criminal-minded individuals who can destabilize the smooth operation of economic and social, as well as political activities across the state. It is also incumbent to note that, the presence of ample security provision within the state is to aid aversion of criminal gangs and activities within the state. This serves as the sole aim of the provision of the state government towards its citizens. Authority plays a significant role in ensuring that all the citizens within the territories of the state is free from any threat of security. Thus, it is incumbent for any citizen to exercise great respect and obedience towards the state organs that are put in place.

Legal issues, cultural conflicts and power struggles

Legal issues are unavoidable especially in a system where the state deals with the individuals and groups of different races and religious backgrounds. Constant contradiction to the provision of laws that are put in place by the presence of the sovereign power of the constitution leads to comprehending instances of legal upheavals. Cultural conflicts are another significant factor that is hard to do away. Every individual present in any given state is obliged to adhere to their respective cultural setting despite the power of civilization. This is the basic approach at which every single individual within the societal setup adheres and identifies themselves in respect to the available constitutional provision. It is a wholesome idea to recognize and identify the extent at which the power of culture plays among individuals within the society. Cultural conflicts results when individuals from different cultures contravenes on the basic expectations of every individual within the society. Respect and obedience towards cultural expectations of different individuals within a society is incumbent at all times. Power struggles are basically the extent at which individuals and persons within the state yearn for a given position. This is due to the extent at which such individuals have different desires and agendas for the absolute power achievement. Power struggle leads to qualitative competition among possible power fighters. A time this leads to unhealthy competition among the potential power fighters and brings about undesired conflicts that are politically motivated. Power struggles are brought about by the urge to transform the general status of the community and state as a whole. Every individual who is interested in holding a given office usually owns a blueprint of all the transformative advances that he/she can add to the development grid of the state. State government facilitates independent power personnel through a system of elections. This is the ultimate approach at which every single citizen can choose a candidate of interest to represent a given power gap that lacks the rightful personnel.

Relevance of Power, authority and Resistance to me

There is a leveraged relevance of the urge for power and obedience to a system of authority that is in place to daily routine of every individual. Power brings about transformative change within the society; it facilitates positive advancements in terms of development. Authority stipulates a streamlined mechanism that can be used to facilitate timely progress within the society and state as a whole. Authority offers a stepping stone that can be used to formulate a series of progressive development within the state. It is only through a system of authority that progress from any given scope can be realized. Resistance within a system of state governance is basically a tool that is used to cross-check the general moves that the technocrats are using to stimulate development in the society. Resistance offers a criticism path that power can be analyzed on the basis of progressive impacts that adds on the general community and state advancement. It is incumbent to monitor the extent of power that is applied to stimulate progress in the society. This allows the ultimate position which can be used to analyze and catalyze the significant progress that is impacted to the state organ. Obedience to authority and power is, however, incumbent at any given time.

Works Cited

Kula, Maria Cornachione. "Are US State And Local Governments Consumption Smoothers?." Journal Of Economic Studies 41.1 (2014): 87-100. Rosenstein, Carole, et al. "The Distribution And Policy Implications Of US State Government General Operating Support To The Arts And Culture: Lessons From The Great Recession." Cultural Trends 22.3/4 (2013): 180-191. Stuart, Elaine. "Balance of power." State Government News Jan. 1997: 5.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1110

This paper is created by writer with

ID 282098233

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Canal term papers, encounter term papers, banker term papers, cough term papers, dignity term papers, analyst term papers, advance term papers, imitation term papers, abstraction term papers, leverage term papers, credentials college essays, essay on john updike s a p, financial management essay sample 3, sample report on critical analysis of aston martin, good essay on allegory of the cave, chemical dependency essay example, free marxs concept of the alienated labor essay example, essay on parthenon, couperin essays, clitoris essays, rubber plant essays, showroom essays, promissory note essays, south east asia essays, teleological essays, theist essays, tree farm essays, angies list essays, kanye essays, biles essays, progressive era essays, american leaders essays, croats essays, bosnian war essays, serb essays, genocides essays, arusha essays, concentration camps essays, wehrmacht essays, surface tension essays, paraffin essays, paraffin oil essays, petri dish essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

The former president and his backers aim to strengthen the power of the White House and limit the independence of federal agencies.

Donald J. Trump intends to bring independent regulatory agencies under direct presidential control. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jonathan Swan ,  Charlie Savage and Maggie Haberman

• Published July 17, 2023 Updated July 18, 2023

Donald J. Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Mr. Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Mr. Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.

He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Obeying Authority: Should We Trust Them or Not?

Daniel walker.

Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom

Associated Data

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Researchers claim impartiality when conducting research and suggest their motives are to improve knowledge. However, when investigating the history of research into obedience to authority, propaganda and power-knowledge are present as well as emotional ties that affect the motives and methods of investigating these areas. With published work from US President Woodrow Wilson proposing obeying authority is necessary to functional societies and the Vatican displaying power-knowledge when censoring heliocentric views, it seems some researchers have ulterior motives. Although researchers like Piaget and Milgram appear to be more integral researchers, Piaget like many utilised observational methods that lack replicability, and Milgram’s family history with the events of the Holocaust pose additional issues. Therefore, considering the General Demarcation Problem, it is difficult to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, given all researchers will consider the research they conduct in the present day to be the correct way of doing so. However, adopting a critical mind as to who is conducting the research and the wider implications of who it serves and who it does not serve, would be beneficial for academia and wider society. This comes in a time where many reject the science of critical world issues such as COVID-19 and climate change.

Introduction

Philosopher Imre Lakatos (Lakatos & Feyerabend, 1999 ) once reminisced on challenging Marxists on their strong views. Questioning what type of event would have to occur to alter their political and economic thoughts, stunned silence was received. This could be an example of the occurrence of cognitive dissonance, that may decelerate intellectual progression. This not only shapes how the world is perceived but the ways in which researchers attempt to gain further understanding. Just as Marxists were stunned at the thought of a world where their political beliefs would not remain constant, the same can be said for research methodologies. Khun ( 1962 ) suggested this was because scientists work within a rigid framework whereby researchers share values and beliefs, or paradigms, and described this as ‘normal science’. People have attempted to increase understanding of the world for over two thousand years however, their methods alter significantly. A crucial issue is that many researchers presume that present day methods are the best way to improve knowledge highlighting they are not exempt from cognitive dissonance. Obedience to authority has been adopted by the psychological community as a popular topic of research interest. However, the reasons as to why this area of research has been investigated differ, and therefore the conclusions ought to be inferred with caution. With present-day examples of disobeying authority such as infringement of government guidelines regarding COVID-19, this area is more pertinent than ever.

Power of research in the early 17th -20th century

The first psychology laboratory was established in 1879 at Leipzig University. It was from then, that psychology became the dominant discipline when examining obedience to authority. Before this, many recorded documents that can be accessed provide somewhat romantic philosophical notions of the benefits of obeying authority. Whilst some papers identify obedience to authority as being an essential cog for a healthy functional society (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ) others deem it imperative for successful winning sports teams (Gettell, 1917 ). Without empirical evidence or data to examine, the question that once again derives is why was this propaganda published in academic books and journals of the time?

The fundamental explanation is power-knowledge. Michel Foucault is considered one of the most influential researchers regarding this phenomenon. With a background in both philosophy and psychology, Foucault was a respected researcher and claimed that power and knowledge should not be treated as two separate entities but are in-fact related. That is, knowledge is always an exercise of power and power is always a function of knowledge. Foucault ( 1980 ) used sexuality and the church as an example of power-knowledge stating that between the 17th and 20th century, the church produced knowledge of individuals’ sexual desires through confessions. He argued that through confessing these sexual desires, people began to develop a sexual identity that had not been present prior to this, an identity that, in the view of the church, had to be controlled. With biblical references that suggest certain sexual desires, such as homosexuality to be inappropriate and the church having a great influence over societal implications, the church could now use this knowledge of sexual desires provided through the confessions to control the populations’ sexual activity and perceptions of different sexual preferences.

Although the inception of Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge (1980) was only derived in the late 20th century, there are examples throughout history whereby knowledge has been utilised to not only obtain power but also to retain it. As well as the history of sexuality that Foucault ( 1980 ) highlights, the roman catholic church has also been responsible for other societal control over the development of knowledge. This is evident in the Galileo affair during the early 17th century, where the Roman Catholic inquisition tried infamous astronomer Galileo Galilei for his support of heliocentrism. Living in a region under predominant Roman Catholic influence, and during a time where the Church of England was forming, it can be considered brave of Galileo to attempt to reinterpret the Bible with his astronomical observations and heliocentric conclusions (Langford, 1992 ). Having made his views clear, however, Galileo was ordered by Pope Paul V to abandon these notions that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun as they oppose holy scripture (Finocchiaro, 2014 ). For ten years Galileo obliged, until the election of a new Pope that had condemned his earlier discipline from the church. The Church’s elitist authoritarianism towards Galileo and heliocentrism at this time had desperate undertones with a fear of increased knowledge leading to secularisation and in turn a forfeit of power. Censoring the work of Galileo, the Church controlled the knowledge that was available to the public at that time. Only allowing publications and merit to those that supported the biblical, geocentric views of the Vatican in turn led to the retention of power in this period.

This is also evident with the first philosophical notions of obedience to authority in the early 20th century. As highlighted, prior to any objective psychological examinations of this behaviour, there were various non-empirical suggestions that obedience is necessary for a productive functional society (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ). Power-knowledge provides a good explanation as to why this propaganda would be published in trusted sources. Wilson ( 1911 ), soon to become President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, referred to obedience to authority as being integral to a functional society with the paper being published just two years before his presidential election victory, and whilst governor of New Jersey. Published in The American Political Science Review, a leading political journal within the country, this could be construed as a form of propaganda, to develop power over the masses. With the notion that individuals are led to believe that the power of the few over the many is to their advantage (Lakatos & Feyerabend, 1999 ), there are undertones that the references of obedience to authority are utilised with similar motivations of the Roman Catholic Church in the 1600’s. However, in the interests of furthering research, fortunately a more epistemological and systematic method of examining obedience to authority was adopted in the 20th century.

Piaget’s impact on objectively examining obedience to authority

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget originally had a background in philosophy due to his godfather’s urgings to study the fields of philosophy and logic (Snowman & Biehler, 2003 ). It was only upon emigrating to France in the 1920’s where his interest in psychoanalysis developed, accompanied by experimental methods. His work consisted predominantly of the cognitive development of children which led to studying infant morality (Piaget, 1932 ). One of Piaget’s basic principles regarding morality in children was the creation of their own conceptions of the world, in that they are not genetic or adopted through social observation of adults. That is, infants develop their own understanding of justice, fairness and equality based on how they perceive the world and through social interaction with peers, supporting Kantian theory (Kant, 1999 ). Interestingly, Piaget ( 1932 ) reported that when obedience to authority and equality are brought into conflict, the child is always in favour of obeying the authoritative figure of the adult and disregarding their own moral compass. This work can be considered a pioneering aspect of literature into obedience to authority that has led to an abundance of psychological research throughout the 20th and into the 21st century (Brief et al., 2000 ; Gridley & Jenkins, 2017 ; Laupa & Turiel, 1986 ; Milgram, 1965 ).

Piaget’s original claims were based on a relatively small sample of French children in a controlled experimental condition, and therefore it would not be plausible to accept the notion that all children’s moral reasoning is heteronomous before ten years of age where it then becomes autonomous, despite others reporting similar findings (Lerner, 1937 ). Instead, Piaget can be credited for providing the basis for further research such as Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral development (Kohlberg, 1969 ) which has been widely accepted by the psychological community (Malinowski & Smith, 1985 ; Murphy & Gilligan, 1980 ). While critics argue that both Piaget and Kohlberg severely underestimated children and their cognitive processes (Leonard & Archer, 1989 ; Narvaez, 2005 ; Rubin & Trotter, 1977 ), suggesting that stages of moral development occur earlier than five years of age (Cushman et al., 2013 ; Gray et al., 2004 ), the pioneering work of Piaget provided a precedent of further research into an unscathed area of psychology. Following research into children, it was of interest to many whether urges to obey authority would continue into adulthood, a decision possibly influenced by real life events (Mastroianni, 2002 ).

Milgram, World War Two, and the Holocaust

The most prominent study regarding obedience to authority (Blass, 1999 ) is Milgram’s experiment (Milgram, 1963 ) which is considered one of the most popular in psychology (Slater et al., 2006 ). Winning the AAAS Prize for Behavioural Science Research in 1964 for his work on social aspects of obedience, Milgram’s reputation was projected to soar. Ethical debates that surrounded his work led to Milgram failing to secure a tenure position at Harvard University, despite the controversial experiment taking place at Yale. However, disregarding the ethical implications, this study supports the conclusions of Piaget’s earlier work, finding that although the sample were aware from a very young age that hurting others is against their moral code, they abandon these beliefs when following the instructions of an authoritative figure (Milgram, 1963 ).

Scientific research often follows the normal science structure that an idea forms the basis of a research question which is then tested and reported on (Khun, 1962 ). It would appear this is the case with Milgram wanting to study obedience to authority, following on from the work of Piaget ( 1932 ) and then McGranahan ( 1946 ) who examined the differences between obedience to authority in German and American samples. However, raised in a Jewish household, to refugee parents, Milgram was directly affected by the Holocaust. Surviving family members that bore concentration camp tattoos even took sanction at their new home in New York during the second world war (Fermaglich, 2007 ). Additionally, during adulthood, the worldwide media coverage of the Adolf Eichmann trial persisted. The former Nazi concentration camp leader had been charged with fifteen crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity in 1960 (Arendt, 1994 ). Two years later Eichmann was found guilty and subsequently executed, however observers of the trial reported Eichmann’s remarkable normalcy whilst attempting to hide behind the fact that he had committed no crime and was simply following orders. It was insisted that he and others were bound by an oath of loyalty to Hitler which was the same superior orders defence used by many defendants in the Nuremberg trials a decade earlier (Cesarani, 2005 ). The aftermath of the execution led to increased media coverage and renewed interest of the second world war and the holocaust (Cesarani, 2005 ) and Milgram was no exception. There were even mentions of Nazi behaviour in several pieces of his work into obedience (Milgram, 1963 ; 1965 ). Although initial ideas form a significant basis of psychological research, how much influence do real life events have on researchers?

General Demarcation Problem

The rationale behind Milgram’s cognition raises questions about the general demarcation problem. Where previously there were philosophical propogandist notions of obedience to authority being essential to a functional society (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ), following Piaget’s example, Milgram was now willing to utilise more testable techniques to examine obedience. The general demarcation problem is the debate between science and non-science and is considered one of the most important issues in the philosophy of science and therefore social science (Resnik, 2000 ). There are various criterion of the demarcation problem including, logical positivism. Logical positivism supports verificationism and asserts that only statements that can be verified through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful. Popper ( 1963 ) added that to be considered a science, the theories and hypotheses must be testable (Resnik, 2000 ). This was referred to as falsifiability, another branch of the demarcation problem that opposes verificationism (Thagard & Zalta, 2008 ).

From this, it can be considered phenomenological that obedience to authority is researched today. The non-empirical suggestions in the early 20th century (Tuttle, 1943 ; Wilson, 1911 ) had tones of propaganda and therefore would be considered as ‘non-science’ if taking a Popperian standpoint, highlighting the demarcation problem among this area of research. Following this, Piaget’s ( 1932 ) observations of children’s responses to obeying authority and ignoring their own moral code could be said to agree with the viewpoint of logical positivism. The conclusions that when obeying authority and equality are brought into conflict, children are always in favour of obeying the authoritative figure and disregarding their own moral beliefs, can be considered as logical empiricism. The empirical observation of the researchers provides a cognitive meaning to the statements, in this case conclusions, of the research.

Milgram’s study into obedience to authority (1963) can be considered, unlike Piaget’s work of children’s cognitions, an example of falsifiability. The fundamental difference between logical positivism and falsifiability is that the latter has the capacity for theory to be proven wrong. As Milgram reported in his study the sample used and the exact methodological procedure of the experiment this allows for replication and in turn criticism of the findings, something that was impossible with Piaget’s observations. This has become evident with numerous studies highlighting the lack of validity of Milgram’s research (De Vos, 2009 ; Fjellman, 1976 ) with some even suggesting the results were fabricated (Perry, 2013 ). From this, the demarcation problem makes it difficult to differentiate between science and pseudoscience. Where most would agree that there is a clear distinction between the work of Wilson ( 1911 ) and Tuttle ( 1943 ) being pseudoscience and Piaget ( 1932 ) and Milgram ( 1963 ) being science, it is difficult to suggest logical positivism should not be considered as scientific as other criterion of the demarcation problem exist such as falsifiability of data.

Why conduct the research, who does it serve, and who does it not serve?

From the literature examined, the reasons behind conducting research vary. Whereby some researchers share the paradigm that the sole purpose of research is driven by the philosophy of advancing science and improving knowledge (Eisenberg, 1987 ; Owen et al., 2012 ), it is evident that the driving force behind some research alters. From the work of Wilson ( 1911 ) we can deduct that there is a political agenda involved, utilising the platform he established during his academic career during his presidential campaign. In contrast, the work of Milgram taken on face value could be considered normal science (Khun, 1962 ) as it can be seen to progress former aspects of the literature (McGranahan, 1946 ). However, there is the argument that Milgram’s real-life experiences question the motives and positionality of this research. Milgram’s research, although valuable in its findings into the human cognitive function of obedience (Milgram, 1965 ), can be questioned for providing former Nazi’s with an excuse for their behaviour during the holocaust as well as diminishing responsibility. Having considered the reasons for conducting research and who it may serve, there is cause to acknowledge those that it may not be beneficial to. As Germany and former Nazi’s now had the excuse of an agentic state (Nissani, 1990 ), this research can be considered as not serving victims of the holocaust by defending the perpetrators, something that Milgram was heavily criticised for given his background (Mastroianni, 2002 ).

Present-Day Implications

It is important to be aware of science and pseudoscience, and how this could influence the masses. This is especially relevant in the present day, given the speed at which misinformation is spread online, from climate change (Allagaier, 2019) to COVID-19 (Li et al., 2020 ). It is vital that the present-day public do not succumb to the cognitive dissonance errors of previous generations, and to be aware of how people in positions of power, are able to use different sources to push their agenda. Rather, a critical approach to research should be adopted, understanding the role that power-knowledge could have, the reasons for the research being conducted, and who is conducting it. This is particularly relevant to anti-vax sentiment and COVID-19 belief with obeying authority.

The General Demarcation Problem is particularly pertinent in the information and misinformation regarding COVID-19. Interestingly, logical positivism has been adopted by many during the COVID-19 pandemic when looking to scientific knowledge to inform their behaviour. However, this has been threatened as many have not subscribed to this, actively opposing scientific knowledge in fear of propaganda from worldwide governments and the mainstream media. This may have been exacerbated by political shortfalls such as Downing Street parties by the United Kingdom government as well as the former Health Secretary disobeying the guidance that they had set themselves. Despite conference briefings including Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Chris Whitty, perhaps the political undertones of their delivery cast doubt into some minds regarding the validity of these claims. Therefore, there is anti-vaccine sentiment that questions what is science and pseudoscience regarding COVID-19 due to political inclusion within science. Interestingly, this demonstrates a clear shift in obedience towards authority as Wilson ( 1911 ) received little backlash from his academic publication. By contrast, the now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom receives large criticism and scrutiny from the British public on social media websites such as Twitter.

Many also oppose climate change due to authority informing them of its dangers and encouraging behaviour change within the general population. The COVID-19 lockdowns and climate change issues share a similarity in their hardship. Many report the governmental restrictions imposed due to the onset of the pandemic as being extremely difficult to their mental health (Banks & Xu, 2020 ). Additionally, many also suggest that climate change is an extremely difficult issue to address due to its cumulative effect (Clerici et al., 2019 ; Murray et al., 2015 ). The similarity here may be their difficulty. Although those that refute COVID-19 or climate change may cite reasons such as political power and restricting societal freedoms as their motivations, it could be that they are afraid of the science. Rather than accepting the science as true and taking the hard steps in tackling huge societal hardships like the two examples above, many may find it easier to reject the science, regardless of its rigour.

Here we develop a new underpinning of the General Demarcation Problem. Not only is there the issue of determining the difference between science and pseudoscience, but there is also the issue of the public’s right to reject the science. While in a democratic society everyone has the right to their own opinion, this liberty to reject scientific evidence has huge implications on science itself, health, and the future of our planet. The cognitive dissonance that exacerbated the Marxists stunned silence when Lakatos confronted their beliefs may be a key reason for challenging scientific evidence for COVID-19 and climate change.

Conclusions

When reviewing the literature as well as various historical events, it is fair to conclude that ideas are rarely novel in the context of research in social science and obedience to authority is no exception. This questions Kuhn’s (1962) notion of ‘normal science’ as it is evident that propaganda was utilised in part of the early 20th century, highlighting a different motive for conducting research. As well as this, the link between knowledge and power becomes clearer with various examples highlighting the association between the two entities and the ways in which they have been manipulated. With the links between power and knowledge proving increasingly evident, this amplifies how power can also determine what society believes to be true, and in turn censoring and controlling the knowledge of the masses (Lakatos & Feyerabend, 1999 ). The general demarcation problem and truth can also be perceived as interacting bodies as the constant evolution of what is and what is not a science can develop power by the disregarding of another. It is interesting to examine the ways that obedience to authority has been shaped in the literature over the past 100 years. As many modern-day researchers would stand by Kuhn’s suggestion of ‘normal science’ it is noteworthy that the inception of obedience to authority within testable research was inspired by real life events. Additionally, the role of power-knowledge and obedience to authority may be more relevant than ever, given the impact that this may have on current issues such as compliance to COVID-19 restrictions and climate change action.

Data Availability Statement

Declarations.

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Arendt, H. (1994). Some questions of moral philosophy.Social research,739–764
• Banks J, Xu X. The mental health effects of the first two months of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Fiscal Studies. 2020; 41 (3):685–708. doi: 10.1111/1475-5890.12239. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blass T. The Milgram Paradigm After 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know About Obedience to Authority 1. Journal of applied social psychology. 1999; 29 (5):955–978. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brief AP, Dietz J, Cohen RR, Pugh SD, Vaslow JB. Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 2000; 81 (1):72–97. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2867. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cesarani, D. (2005). Eichmann: His life and crimes . Random House
• Clerici N, Cote-Navarro F, Escobedo FJ, Rubiano K, Villegas JC. Spatio temporal and cumulative effects of land use-land cover and climate change on two ecosystem services in the Colombian Andes. Science of the Total Environment. 2019; 685 :1181–1192. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.275. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cushman F, Sheketoff R, Wharton S, Carey S. The development of intent based moral judgment. Cognition. 2013; 127 (1):6–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.11.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Vos J. Now that you know, how do you feel? The Milgram experiment and psychologization. Annual Review of Critical Psychology. 2009; 7 :223–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberg RS. Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale LJ. 1987; 97 :177. doi: 10.2307/796481. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fermaglich K. American dreams and Nazi nightmares: Early Holocaust consciousness and liberal America, 1957–1965. UPNE. 2007 doi: 10.26812/9781584655497. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finocchiaro, M. A. (2014). The Trial of Galileo: Essential Documents . Hackett Publishing
• Fjellman SM. Natural and Unnatural Decision-Making: A Critique of Decision Theory. Ethos. 1976; 4 (1):73–94. doi: 10.1525/eth.1976.4.1.02a00040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 . Pantheon
• Gettell RG. III. The Value of Football. American Physical Education Review. 1917; 22 (3):138–142. doi: 10.1080/23267224.1917.10651485. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray RF, Indurkhya A, McCormick MC. Prevalence, stability, and predictors of clinically significant behavior problems in low birth weight children at 3, 5, and 8 years of age. Pediatrics. 2004; 114 (3):736–743. doi: 10.1542/peds.2003-1150-L. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gridley, M., & Jenkins, W. J. (2017). An Analysis of Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View . Macat Library
• Kant, I. (1999). Practical philosophy . Cambridge University Press
• Khun, T. (1962). Paradigm shift
• Kohlberg L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. Handbook of socialization theory and research. 1969; 347 :480. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakatos, I., & Feyerabend, P. (1999). For and against method: including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence . University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226467030.001.0001
• Langford, J. J. (1992). Galileo, science, and the church . University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.7315
• Laupa, M., & Turiel, E. (1986). Children’s conceptions of adult and peer authority. Child Development , 405–412. 10.2307/1130596
• Leonard SP, Archer J. A naturalistic investigation of gender constancy in three to four-year‐old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 1989; 7 (4):341–346. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00810.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner E. The problem of perspective in moral reasoning. American journal of sociology. 1937; 43 (2):249–269. doi: 10.1086/217683. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li HOY, Bailey A, Huynh D, Chan J. YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation? BMJ global health. 2020; 5 (5):e002604. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002604. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malinowski CI, Smith CP. Moral reasoning and moral conduct: An investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1985; 49 (4):1016–1027. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.1016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mastroianni GR. Milgram and the Holocaust: A reexamination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2002; 22 (2):158–173. doi: 10.1037/h0091220. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGranahan DV. A comparison of social attitudes among American and German youth. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1946; 41 (3):245–257. doi: 10.1037/h0060875. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milgram S. Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963; 67 (4):371–378. doi: 10.1037/h0040525. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milgram S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations. 1965; 18 (1):57–76. doi: 10.1177/001872676501800105. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy JM, Gilligan C. Moral development in late adolescence and adulthood: A critique and reconstruction of Kohlberg’s theory. Human development. 1980; 23 (2):77–104. doi: 10.1159/000272541. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray CC, Agbayani S, Ban NC. Cumulative effects of planned industrial development and climate change on marine ecosystems. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2015; 4 :110–116. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2015.06.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Narvaez, D. (2005). The neo-Kohlbergian tradition and beyond: Schemas, expertise, and character. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 51, p. 119) [ PubMed ]
• Nissani M. A cognitive reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram’s observations on obedience to authority. American Psychologist. 1990; 45 (12):1345–1385. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1384. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and public policy. 2012; 39 (6):751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry G. Deception and illusion in Milgram’s accounts of the obedience experiments. Theoretical & Applied Ethics. 2013; 2 (2):79–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piaget, J. (1932). The moral development of the child. Kegan Paul, London
• Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. 1963a London . UK Routledge
• Resnik DB. A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 2000; 31 (2):249–267. doi: 10.1016/S0039-. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin KH, Trotter KT. Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Scale: Some methodological considerations. Developmental Psychology. 1977; 13 (5):535–536. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.535. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Sanchez-Vives MV. A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS one. 2006; 1 (1):e39. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000039. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snowman J, Biehler R. Psychology applied to teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thagard, P., & Zalta, E. N. (2008).Cognitive science Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
• Tuttle HS. Obedience: A necessary convenience. The Elementary School Journal. 1943; 43 (6):343–346. doi: 10.1086/458180. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, W. (1911). The Law and the Facts: Presidential Address, Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. American Political Science Review , 5 (1), 1–11. 10.2307/1945988