OPINION THE BIG IDEA Just obeying orders? Ordinary people can commit atrocities simply by following orders, iconic experiments from the 1960s concluded. But this notion of the “banality of evil” is wrong, argue psychologists Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher S oto AGNUM PH AGNUM M RICK ZACHMANN/RICK T PA 28 | NewScientist | 13 September 2014 For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion IF YOU only know about one research NAZIS AND THE banaLITY OF EVIL programme in psychology, chances are it is Stanley Milgram’s “shock experiments”. In 1961, Adolf Eichmann, one of main lesson to be gleaned passive pen-pusher. Rather, he Conducted in the early 1960s at Yale the chief architects of the “final from his life was one of “the was a committed Nazi who took University, the participants were asked by an solution to the Jewish question”, fearsome, word-and-thought- on organisational challenges “Experimenter” to take on the role of “Teacher” was sentenced to death for the defying banality of evil”. with fervour and imagination. and administer an escalating series of electric murder of millions of people in Yet while this concept of the If he thought orders were not shocks to a “Learner” in the next room when Nazi extermination camps. banality of evil proved highly sufficiently “on message” he he chose the wrong answers in a memory test. Prior to his trial he had been influential – not least because would disobey them, and where This was supposedly part of a study into the portrayed in the media and by it gelled closely with Stanley none had been given, as was effect of punishment on learning. psychiatrists as a sadistic and Milgram’s account of obedience often the case, he would still The participants didn’t know that the shocks, psychopathic monster. But as to authority – in recent years “work towards the Führer” in and the cries they elicited from the Learner, political theorist Hannah Arendt historians have cast doubt on a creative way. weren’t genuine. Nevertheless, many acceded watched him give his defence its validity. A crucial point is that he did to the Experimenter’s requests and proved at the trial, she found that this A key problem is that Arendt this because he was convinced willing to deliver shocks labelled 450 volts picture did not hold true. On the mainly attended those parts of that the cause he was advancing to the powerless Learner (who was in fact a contrary, she was struck by the Eichmann’s trial at which his was right. The truly frightening stooge employed by Milgram to play this role). fact that Eichmann (pictured defence worked hard to present thing about Eichmann and his ilk The power of these studies was that they below) came across as a normal him as innocuous, precisely to is not that they didn’t know what appeared to provide startling evidence of our bureaucrat who had simply mitigate blame. they were doing, but that they capacity for blind obedience – evidence that been following orders – without The prosecution, however, knew full well what they were inhumanity springs not necessarily from question, imagination or insight. had presented compelling doing and believed their actions deep-seated hatred or pathology, but rather Famously, she claimed that the evidence that Eichmann was no to be justified, worthy and noble. from a much more mundane inclination to obey the orders of those in authority, however unreasonable or brutal these may be. This was In these, the proportion of participants who orders prove to be the least effective means the substance of the “agentic state theory” that kept on shocking to the bitter end varied from of securing obedience. We see this because Milgram developed to explain his findings 0 to 100 per cent. So it cannot be assumed Milgram scripted a number of verbal “prods” in his 1974 book Obedience to Authority. that people always obey. Indeed, as Milgram for the Experimenter to use if participants Importantly, it is an analysis that chimes with himself recognised in the title of an early were reticent about continuing, such as: political theorist Hannah Arendt’s notion of publication, these are studies of disobedience “You have no other choice, you must the “banality of evil”, which she famously as well as obedience. continue”. Yet almost every time this prod developed after observing the trial of the Next, even where there was obedience, it was used, participants refused to go on. So Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann (see “Nazis was far from blind. While participant Teachers whatever else the studies might show, the and the banality of evil”, above right). attended to the demands of the Experimenter, one thing they don’t show is that we have Milgram’s studies are influential to this they were well aware of the apparent suffering an inherent tendency to obey orders. day, but are also some of the most unethical of the Learner. Consequently, they were torn So what do they show? Putting the strands ever conducted in psychology. They could between these two voices, as film footage of of evidence together, we argue that the never be carried out in a similar form today Milgram’s experiment shows. What is more, balance between obedience and disobedience due to the extreme stress suffered by the hinges upon whether participants prioritise participants (see “Never again”, page 31). the voice of the Experimenter over that of the Ironically, these ethical problems have served Learner or vice versa. This, in turn, depends only to consolidate the influence of Milgram’s upon whether they identify more with the agentic state explanation. The impossibility of cause of science or more with the plight of replication has made it hard for an alternative the ordinary citizen. In these terms, the account to gain traction. problem with orders is that they undermine Nevertheless an alternative account is identification with the science by positioning needed. Not only have recent historical the Experimenter above and apart from studies led researchers to question Arendt’s participants, rather than as a collaborator in claims that Eichmann and his ilk simply went a common cause. And what this means is that along thoughtlessly with the orders of their those who shock do so not because they are superiors, but reanalysis of Milgram’s work unaware of the consequences of their actions, IS B has also led social psychologists to cast R but because they know what they are doing O serious doubt on the claim we are somehow C and believe it to be worthy. Rather than being programmed to obey authority. MANN/ blindly obedient, they are engaged followers. tt To start with, Milgram didn’t conduct just BE Moreover, participants are engaged one “obedience” study. He conducted over 25, because Milgram expended a great deal varying features of the set-up such as the Pathological, or just a workaday bureaucrat? of effort to engage them. In particular, he proximity of the Experimenter and Learner. The trial of Nazi chief Adolf Eichmann worked hard to persuade them that they > 13 September 2014 | NewScientist | 29 OPINION THE BIG IDEA THE PRISON EXPERIMENT were contributing to vitally important work ILGRAM which would bring about progress in scientific M Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies appear to understanding. In every detail he laboured provide compelling evidence that normal people to give the studies scientific authority, right LEXANDRA might be willing to kill a stranger simply if ordered down to the meticulously designed fake A ESY ESY to do so by someone in authority (see main story). shock generator (“Type ZLB”, supposedly T UR Co This aligns with conclusions typically drawn made by the Dyson Instrument Company). Y/ T from another classic piece of social psychological A 2012 paper we published in Perspectives research: the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). on Psychological Science provides preliminary NIVERSI U Conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo, this ALE Y involved randomly assigning students to be “ Within days, ‘guards’ were either guards or prisoners within a mock prison. RCHIVES, A The objective was to observe how social subjecting the ‘prisoners’ S AND AND S relations within and between the two groups to degrading treatments” pt unfolded in the absence of an obviously malevolent authority. As in Milgram’s studies, the ANUSCRI support for this alternative analysis and is M results proved shocking: within a few days, the again rooted in Milgram’s own findings. In guards were subjecting prisoners to a host of this, we asked people to read descriptions of degrading and abusive treatments. This led to different variants of his study and then to the study being terminated after just six days. indicate how much they would identify with ERS, 1927-1993 (INCL.). (INCL.). 1927-1993 ERS, P the Experimenter and the Learner in each. We A P DESCENT INTO TYRANNY found that relative identification – the level of ILGRAM ILGRAM Zimbardo concluded that people descend into identification with the Experimenter minus M tyranny because they conform naturally and identification with the Learner – was highly ANLEY ANLEY unthinkingly to the toxic roles and scripts that correlated with the levels of shock that St accompany particular contexts – so that, for Milgram’s participants actually delivered. example, a brutal prison will inevitably create But while it is one thing to reinterpret elicit similar reactions to Milgram’s original. brutal guards. Like Milgram’s work, this analysis old data, it is quite another to produce new Initial findings show how participants orient to is closely aligned with the “banality of evil” thesis data to test alternative explanations. And in both the Learner and the Experimenter, trying devised by political theorist Hannah Arendt.