I've always thought that most reality television was nothing more than unethical psychological experiments in disguise. (What else could Temptation Island or Wife Swap possibly be?) But now ABC has taken this idea to its logical extreme. Last week, the news show Primetime Live, along with social psychologist Jerry Burger, recreated the infamous Milgram experiment.
In 1961, Stanley Milgram used an authoritarian figure, dressed in a white lab coat, to coerce people into committing evil acts. The "scientist" instructed people to shock a screaming subject sitting in the next room. Although no one was actually being shocked, the participants heard a man screaming in pain, and eventually pleading to be released from the experiment. When the subjects questioned the experimenter about what was happening, they were told they must continue.
What made the experiment so infamous were the results: more than two-thirds of Milgram's participants delivered shocks after hearing cries of pain, signs of heart trouble, and then, after a particularly shrill scream, nothing at all. The experiment seemed to elucidate how ordinary people could commit extraordinary atrocities: they were just following orders, "doing their job".
In the 1970's, experiments like the one performed by Milgram were criticized as being unethical. Since subjects were temporarily convinced that they had killed somebody, they experienced tremendous emotional duress. So ABC decided to slightly amend the Milgram protocol. Although subjects knew they were causing someone else pain through intense electrical shocks, the pain never get out of control.
So have we improved since 1961? Are ordinary citizens less likely to torture a fellow citizen when commanded by a scientist in a lab coat? Alas, the answer is no.
We tested 18 men, and found that 65 percent of them agreed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks when ordered by an authority figure.
22 women signed up for our experiment. Even though most people said that women would be less likely to inflict pain on the learner, a surprising 73 percent yielded to the orders of the experimenter.
Out of the 30 people we tested with an additional accomplice acting as a moral guide, 63 percent still inflicted electric shocks, even though the accomplice refused to go on.
- Log in to post comments
Milgram's Obedience to Authority (Harper & Row 1974) should be required reading in high schools world wide. A number of other works shed light on this characteristic. Two that are particularly worthwhile are Robert J. Lifton's The Nazi Doctors (Basic Book, 1986) and Christopher R. Browning's Ordinary Men (Harper Collins, 1992.)
Obedience to authority was also considered by Lawrence Kohlberg in his Stages of Moral Development.
Obedience to authority explains much about the dark side human society and individual behavior.
A particularly interesting facet of this characteristic is the phenomena of situational blindness. In nearly every case of societally sanctioned atrocity, the agents themselves simply can't see that they are doing something wrong.
Browning observed that government sanction could be so strong as to excuse any crime in the mind of the perpetrator.
This explains why, in the face of a significant body of evidence that other animals have emotions and cognitive characteristics describable and understandable in human terms, that we continue to actively harm them on such an obscene scale.
What about the plants?? For God's sake, won't someone please think about the plants!!!
I've always thought that the next generation of reality shows would end up being recreations of unethical psychological experiments, starting with Milgram's. It just sort of seems like the next step for the genre.
I don't believe Milgram's experiment was unethical, nor do I believe the recent replication of the experiment was unethical. If the knowledge gained inspires even just a few individuals to resist authority's attempts to force them to perform unethical acts, then it's worth it.
Plus, as you've pointed out, what the subjects actually experience is tame compared to most reality shows and even, say, appearing on Jerry Springer.
Surely the Stanford prison experiment would make better television?
The BBC did the Stanford prison experiment back in 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1986889.stm
One of the worst examples of unethical psychological experiments dressed up as reality shows is Flavor of Love. You have this simulated household, with Flavor Flav as the leader. He's given all sorts of theatrical props to show that he is in charge. At times, he literally wears a crown. The women are only referred to by their nicknames instead of their real names (stripping them of their identities), and are given increasingly humiliating tasks to perform. There is always uncertainty about who will be rewarded and who will be punished because these rewards and punishments appear random. The women are not-so-subtly encouraged to dislike one another so that there are no strong alliances made between them. Meanwhile, they act more and more sexually brazen, because that appears to be the only way to win the affection and approval of the source of power in the household. It's like the Stanford experiment. They're internalizing the role of 'hos.
The problem with such an experiment, is you have to be certain the test group weren't aware that no one was actually being hurt. If I volunteered for a psychology experiment (and I have several times), especially one conducted in connection with some official group (a university, for instance), I would be extremely certain that nothing I do would actually be inflicting damage on other people - that it was all a hoax.
Searched Google and ended up here - its good so I posted the site on my Facebook account !