Advertisement

The Obedience to Authority Variations and Milgram’s Agentic State Theory

  • Nestar RussellEmail author
Chapter
  • 529 Downloads

Abstract

After Stanley Milgram achieved his first research goal of discovering how to get most ordinary people to inflict harm on a likable person (Chapter 4), he moved on to his second goal: to undertake many slight baseline variations in an attempt to explain why 65% of participants completed the Remote (baseline) experiment. In this chapter, Russell presents Milgram’s discoveries during this less predictable stage of the wider research project. Russell also draws connections between the Obedience studies and Max Weber’s theory of formal rationality in order to explain Milgram’s impressive organizational feat in collecting what ended up being an enormous amount of data. The final section of this chapter presents the theory Milgram developed from his many baseline variations and how he applied it to better understanding perpetrator behavior during the Holocaust.

Keywords

Milgram Obedience Studies State Statistical Agency Nonhuman Technology Plate Shock 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allan, K. (2013). Explorations in classical sociological theory: Seeing the social world (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanization of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9(4), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Blau, P. M., & Meyer, M. W. (1971). Bureaucracy in modern society (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  7. Darley, J. M. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil. Psychological Inquiry, 3(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elms, A. C. (1995). Obedience in retrospect. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1974). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hilberg, R. (1980). The significance of the Holocaust. In H. Friedlander & S. Milton (Eds.), The Holocaust: Ideology, bureaucracy, and genocide (the San José Papers) (pp. 95–102). Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, P. (1970, February). If Hitler asked you to electrocute a stranger, would you? Probably. Esquire, 73, 128, 130, 132.Google Scholar
  12. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in Milgram’s “obedience” laboratory. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patterson, C. (2002). Eternal Treblinka: Our treatment of animals and the Holocaust. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
  16. Perry, G. (2012). Beyond the shock machine: The untold story of the Milgram Obedience experiments. Melbourne: Scribe.Google Scholar
  17. Ritzer, G. (1983). The “McDonaldization” of society. The Journal of American Culture, 6(1), 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society: An investigation into the changing character of contemporary social life (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ritzer, G. (2015). The McDonalization of society (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1997). Authority: Obedience, defiance, and identification in experimental and historical contexts. In M. Gold (Ed.), A new outline of social psychology (pp. 235–246). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell, N. J. C. (2009). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Towards an understanding of their relevance in explaining aspects of the Nazi Holocaust (Unpublished Doctoral thesis). Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  22. Russell, N. J. C. (2014). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority “relationship” condition: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3(2), 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolfson, A. (2005, October 9). A hoax most cruel. Courier Journal. Retrieved from http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2005/10/09/a-hoax-most-cruel-caller-coaxed-mcdonalds-managers-/28936597/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations