Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?

Krishanu Kumar Das

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?

Krishanu Kumar Das

Published in Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 1)

Received: 12 December 2019 Accepted: 4 January 2020 Published: 27 January 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This article has given efforts to analyze and interpret one of the most famous psychological experiments, conducted by Stanley Milgram, in the light of understanding of nature and characteristics of emotions. Milgram’s famous experiment is actually a series of experiments that started in the summer of 1961, at the Linsly-Chittenden hall of Yale University. This quintessential series of experiments revealed a very significant, yet shocking and unwelcome nature of the human psych. But there is no experimental proof that can explain the true reasons lying behind the results of this experiment. It has been inferred by different authors differently in the course of time. Milgram himself explained this as a fact of obedience in the lattice of the hierarchical social structure. Is it the singular factor? In this project, we will try to interpret it from another angle – that is basic nature and properties of individual emotions and their adaptive processes. We will see not only the matter of obedience, but a variety of factors – namely, magnitude of different emotions, previous adaptational states on different emotional scales, gradual adaptational processes, pressure of conformity to social and cultural norms, obligations coming from individual moral built, and finally genetical compositions of individual persons – all created a bidirectional force having its components acting in opposite directions. And the net product or sum of this bidirectional force ultimately expressed in a person’s action and behaviour that was observed in Milgram’s experiments.

Published in	Social Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
Page(s)	9-24
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Emotions, Empathy, Emotional Scales, Emotional Adaptation, Obedience, Milgram’s Experiment

References

[1]	Blass T (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram; NY: Basic Books.
[2]	Blass T (2012). “A cross-cultural comparison of studies of obedience using the Milgram Paradigm: A re-view.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass; 6 (2): 196-205.
[3]	Burger J M (2009). "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?". American Psychologist; 64 (1): 1–11.
[4]	Milgram S (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. NY: Harper & Row.
[5]	Milgram S (1965). "Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority". Human Relations; 18 (1): 57–76.
[6]	Milgram S (1963). “Behavioral Study of obedience”. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; 67 (4): 371-378.
[7]	Freedman J L, Fraser S C (1966). “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-In-The-Door Technique”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 4 (2): 195-202.
[8]	Gilbert S J (1981). “Another look at the Milgram Obedience Studies: The Role of the Gradated Series of Shocks”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; 7 (4): 690-695.
[9]	Das K (2016). MIND: A Comprehensive Study on Mind and Its Dynamics. Kolkata: K P Basu Publishing Co.
[10]	Das K K (2017). "A Theoretical Approach to Define and Analyze Emotions". International Journal of Emergency Mental Health; 19 (4): 374, 1-14.
[11]	Plutchik R (1980). ''A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion''. In Emotion: Theory, research, and experience. Vol. 1 Theories of Emotion, (Eds. Plutchik R & Kellerman H). New York: Academic Press.
[12]	Izard C E (1992). ''Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations''. Psychological Review; 99 (3): 561-565.
[13]	Ekman P (1992). ''Are there basic emotions?''. Psychological Review; 99 (3): 550-553.
[14]	Ekman P (1999). ''An argument for basic emotions''. Cognition and Emotion; 6 (3): 169-200.
[15]	Panksepp J (1992). “A critical role for ''affective neuroscience'' in resolving what is basic about basic emotions”. Psychological Review; 99 (3): 554-560.
[16]	Ortony A, Turner T J (1990). ''What's basic about basic emotions?''. Psychological Review; 97 (3): 315-331.
[17]	Turner T J, Ortony A (1992). ''Basic emotions: can conflicting criteria converge?''. Psychological Review; 99 (3): 566-571.
[18]	Davis M H (1980). “A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 10 (85).
[19]	Das K K (Dec., 2018). “A Study on Evolutionary Perspectives of ‘Emotions’ and ‘Mood’ on Biological Evolutionary Platform”. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences; 7 (5): 89-96.
[20]	Das K K (June, 2018). "Therapeutic Reprocessing of Association of Memories (TRAM)". International Journal of Emergency Mental Health; 20 (2): 376, 1-7.
[21]	Staub E (1989). The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence; NY: Cambridge University Press.
[22]	Waller J (2007). Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing; 2^nd ed., NY: Oxford University Press.
[23]	Zimbardo P (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, NY: Random House.
[24]	Bickman L (1974). “The Social Power of a Uniform”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology; 4 (1), 47-61.
[25]	Lefkowitz M, Blake R R, Mouton J S (1955). “Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals”. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; 51 (3): 704-706.
[26]	Perry G (2015). “Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments”. Theory and Psychology; 25 (5): 622-638.
[27]	Cialdini R B, Goldstein N J (2004). “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity”. Annual Review of Psychology; 55: 591-621.
[28]	Kallgren C A, Reno R R, Cialdini R B (2000). “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; 26 (8): 1002-1012.
[29]	Schultz P W (1999). “Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling”. Basic and Applied Social Psychology; 21 (1): 25-36.
[30]	Kahan D M (1997). “Social Influence, Social Meaning, and Deterrence”. Virginia Law Review; 83 (3): 349-395.
[31]	Nolan J M, Schultz P W, Cialdini R B, Goldstein N J, Griskevicius V (2008). “Normative Social Influence is Underdetected”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; 34 (7): 913-923.
[32]	Deutsch M, Gerard H B (1955). “A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement”. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; 51 (3): 629-636.
[33]	Crutchfield R S (1955). “Conformity and Character”. American Psychologist; 10 (5): 191-198.
[34]	Asch S E (1955). “Opinions and Social Pressure”. Scientific American; 193 (5): 31-35.
[35]	Haslam S A, Reicher S D, Birney M E (2014). “Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science”. Journal of Social Issues; 70 (3): 473-488.
[36]	Burger J M, Girgis Z M, Manning C C (2011). “In Their Own Words: Explaining obedience to Authority Through an Examination of Participants' Comments”. Social Psychological and Personality Science; 2 (5): 460-466.
[37]	Gibson S (2017). “Just following orders? The rhetorical invocation of ‘obedience’ in Stanley Milgram's post-experiment interviews”. European Journal of Social Psychology; 48 (5): 585-599.
[38]	Rochat F, Modigliani A (1997). “Authority: Obedience, defiance, and identification in experimental and historical contexts”. In M Gold & E A M Douvan (Eds), A new outline of social psychology; page: 235-246. American Psychological Association.
[39]	Perry G (2012). “The Secret Experiments”. In Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments; Ch. 6, Melbourne: Scribe.
[40]	Haas K (1966). “Obedience: Submission to Destructive Orders as Related to Hostility”. Psychological Reports; 19 (1): 32-34.
[41]	Blass, T (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 60 (3): 398–413.
[42]	Perry G (2013). "Deception and Illusion in Milgram's Accounts of the Obedience Experiments". Theoretical & Applied Ethics; 2 (2): 79–92.
[43]	Fromm E (1973). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness; NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[44]	Lorenz K Z (1978). The Foundations of Ethology; NY: Springer-Verlag/Wien.
[45]	Lorenz K (1963). On Aggression; London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
[46]	Arendt H (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on The Banality of Evil; NY: Penguin Classics.
[47]	Harrower M (1976). “Rorschach Records of the Nazi War Criminals: An Experimental Study After Thirty Years”. Journal of Personality Assessment; 40 (4): 341–51.
[48]	Goldberg C (2002). “The mortal storm: righteousness and compassion in moral conflict”. International Journal of Psychotherapy; 7 (3): 265-278.
[49]	Ritzler B A (1978). “The Nuremberg mind revisited: A quantitative approach to Nazi Rorschachs”. Journal of Personality Assessment; 42 (4): 344–353.
[50]	Neumann D L, Chan R C K, Boyle G J, Wang Y and Westbury H R (2015). “Measures of Empathy: Self-Report, Behavioral, and Neuroscientific Approaches”. In book: Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs: 2^nd Edition, Eds. Boyle G J, Saklofske D H, Matthews G; Part III, Chapter 10, page: 257-289. Elsevier: Academic Press.
[51]	Errera P (1972). “Statement based on forty “worst cases” in the Milgram obedience Experiments”. In J. Katz (Ed.), Experimentation with Human Beings; page 400. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
[52]	Bond R, Smith P B (1996). “Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgement task”. Psychological Bulletin; 119 (1): 111-137.
[53]	Ross L, Nisbett R E (1991). The Person and The Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. Great Britain: Pinter & Martin Ltd.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Krishanu Kumar Das. (2020). Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Social Sciences, 9(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Krishanu Kumar Das. Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(1), 9-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Krishanu Kumar Das. Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Soc Sci. 2020;9(1):9-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12,
  author = {Krishanu Kumar Das},
  title = {Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {9-24},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200901.12},
  abstract = {This article has given efforts to analyze and interpret one of the most famous psychological experiments, conducted by Stanley Milgram, in the light of understanding of nature and characteristics of emotions. Milgram’s famous experiment is actually a series of experiments that started in the summer of 1961, at the Linsly-Chittenden hall of Yale University. This quintessential series of experiments revealed a very significant, yet shocking and unwelcome nature of the human psych. But there is no experimental proof that can explain the true reasons lying behind the results of this experiment. It has been inferred by different authors differently in the course of time. Milgram himself explained this as a fact of obedience in the lattice of the hierarchical social structure. Is it the singular factor? In this project, we will try to interpret it from another angle – that is basic nature and properties of individual emotions and their adaptive processes. We will see not only the matter of obedience, but a variety of factors – namely, magnitude of different emotions, previous adaptational states on different emotional scales, gradual adaptational processes, pressure of conformity to social and cultural norms, obligations coming from individual moral built, and finally genetical compositions of individual persons – all created a bidirectional force having its components acting in opposite directions. And the net product or sum of this bidirectional force ultimately expressed in a person’s action and behaviour that was observed in Milgram’s experiments.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?
AU  - Krishanu Kumar Das
Y1  - 2020/01/27
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 9
EP  - 24
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
AB  - This article has given efforts to analyze and interpret one of the most famous psychological experiments, conducted by Stanley Milgram, in the light of understanding of nature and characteristics of emotions. Milgram’s famous experiment is actually a series of experiments that started in the summer of 1961, at the Linsly-Chittenden hall of Yale University. This quintessential series of experiments revealed a very significant, yet shocking and unwelcome nature of the human psych. But there is no experimental proof that can explain the true reasons lying behind the results of this experiment. It has been inferred by different authors differently in the course of time. Milgram himself explained this as a fact of obedience in the lattice of the hierarchical social structure. Is it the singular factor? In this project, we will try to interpret it from another angle – that is basic nature and properties of individual emotions and their adaptive processes. We will see not only the matter of obedience, but a variety of factors – namely, magnitude of different emotions, previous adaptational states on different emotional scales, gradual adaptational processes, pressure of conformity to social and cultural norms, obligations coming from individual moral built, and finally genetical compositions of individual persons – all created a bidirectional force having its components acting in opposite directions. And the net product or sum of this bidirectional force ultimately expressed in a person’s action and behaviour that was observed in Milgram’s experiments.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Krishanu Kumar Das

Department of Medicine, HLG Memorial Hospital, Asansol, India

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Krishanu Kumar Das. (2020). Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Social Sciences, 9(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Krishanu Kumar Das. Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9(1), 9-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Krishanu Kumar Das. Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Soc Sci. 2020;9(1):9-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12,
  author = {Krishanu Kumar Das},
  title = {Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {9-24},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20200901.12},
  abstract = {This article has given efforts to analyze and interpret one of the most famous psychological experiments, conducted by Stanley Milgram, in the light of understanding of nature and characteristics of emotions. Milgram’s famous experiment is actually a series of experiments that started in the summer of 1961, at the Linsly-Chittenden hall of Yale University. This quintessential series of experiments revealed a very significant, yet shocking and unwelcome nature of the human psych. But there is no experimental proof that can explain the true reasons lying behind the results of this experiment. It has been inferred by different authors differently in the course of time. Milgram himself explained this as a fact of obedience in the lattice of the hierarchical social structure. Is it the singular factor? In this project, we will try to interpret it from another angle – that is basic nature and properties of individual emotions and their adaptive processes. We will see not only the matter of obedience, but a variety of factors – namely, magnitude of different emotions, previous adaptational states on different emotional scales, gradual adaptational processes, pressure of conformity to social and cultural norms, obligations coming from individual moral built, and finally genetical compositions of individual persons – all created a bidirectional force having its components acting in opposite directions. And the net product or sum of this bidirectional force ultimately expressed in a person’s action and behaviour that was observed in Milgram’s experiments.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?
AU  - Krishanu Kumar Das
Y1  - 2020/01/27
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
T2  - Social Sciences
JF  - Social Sciences
JO  - Social Sciences
SP  - 9
EP  - 24
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2326-988X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
AB  - This article has given efforts to analyze and interpret one of the most famous psychological experiments, conducted by Stanley Milgram, in the light of understanding of nature and characteristics of emotions. Milgram’s famous experiment is actually a series of experiments that started in the summer of 1961, at the Linsly-Chittenden hall of Yale University. This quintessential series of experiments revealed a very significant, yet shocking and unwelcome nature of the human psych. But there is no experimental proof that can explain the true reasons lying behind the results of this experiment. It has been inferred by different authors differently in the course of time. Milgram himself explained this as a fact of obedience in the lattice of the hierarchical social structure. Is it the singular factor? In this project, we will try to interpret it from another angle – that is basic nature and properties of individual emotions and their adaptive processes. We will see not only the matter of obedience, but a variety of factors – namely, magnitude of different emotions, previous adaptational states on different emotional scales, gradual adaptational processes, pressure of conformity to social and cultural norms, obligations coming from individual moral built, and finally genetical compositions of individual persons – all created a bidirectional force having its components acting in opposite directions. And the net product or sum of this bidirectional force ultimately expressed in a person’s action and behaviour that was observed in Milgram’s experiments.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download