Childhood/Family Life
Stanley
Milgram’s parents, Samuel and Adele Milgram, were Jewish immigrants
from Eastern Europe who moved to the Bronx,
New York
(Blass 2004). Both had moved to the United
States
before Hitler’s rise to power and were considered warm, nurturing
parents. Samuel was a skilled baker who
had studied in Germany
and had
served as a soldier during World War I. Adele
often worked in Samuel’s bakery. Their
first child was Marjorie; Adele gave
birth to Stanley
on August 15, 1933.
Five
years later, their second son, Joel was born. Joel
often collaborated with Stanley in
playing jokes, including one
elaborate ruse to convince a friend of Stanley’s that he was psychic
(Blass,
2004).
Milgram
began to display his intelligence in kindergarten (Blass, 2004). After listening to his mother help Marjorie
study about President Lincoln one night, Stanley
related everything he had learned to his kindergarten teacher when she
asked
the students about him. The impressed
teacher
had Stanley go around to
the other classes
in the school to relate what he knew about Lincoln (Blass, 2004).
Several
events during Stanley’s
youth
provided a glimpse of his later life. He
showed an early interest in science rather than in sports.
Milgram experimented with a chemistry set,
including an incident where he and some friends lowered into a river a
container with enough sodium in it that the resultant explosion brought
not
only the children’s mothers but also fire trucks. Later,
he witnessed his neighbors protest
for, and get, the street to be made into a one-way street after a child
was
struck by a passing car, a vivid example of the ability of people to
affect others’
(city officials) actions, which would be the subject of much of his
later work,
including his conformity, obedience, and televised aggression
experiments
(Blass, 2004).
Though
Milgram’s interest in obedience may have been entirely scientific, as
Blass
(2004) indicates it may also have come from a more personal desire to
understand what had happened in Germany
and other Nazi controlled countries during World War II and the years
immediately preceding it. The
subject
of his Bar Mitzvah speech was the plight of the European Jews and the
changes
the events of World War II meant for Jewish people everywhere: an early
showing
of Milgram’s feeling of connection with the Jewish people who were
persecuted
under Hitler. Though Blass does not
mention it as related to Milgram’s interest in the power of authority,
an event
at his college seems very much related both to what happened to Jewish
people
under Hitler and to the results of his later obedience experiments. While Milgram was at Queens
College, a
number of professors
refused to testify during McCarthy’s Communist Party hearings, and were
fired;
few, if any, of the students complained to the administration. In much the same way, few participants stopped
the obedience experiments when they were not the ones pushing the
switches that
they believed shocked someone (Blass, 2004).
Stanley
was a diligent worker, completing his high school degree in three years
by
taking heavy course loads and summer classes. He
also engaged in a number of
extra-curricular activities. Stanley
attended Queens College,
in large part because it was free, though it was highly ranked at the
time. While there, he majored in
political science and maintained his diverse interests including drama,
poetry,
debating, and international relations. Between
his junior and senior years, he toured Europe
for a summer. During that summer, he
fell in love for the first time; the studious Milgram had not dated at
all
during high school. After receiving his
B.A. in 1954, he attended Harvard’s Department of Social Relations,
which he learned
about through a professor’s recommendation. This
too, however, required diligence on
Milgram’s part as he was
initially rejected. After spending the
summer taking four psychology courses for credit and two as audits,
Milgram was
accepted as a special student, and following a year of taking graduate
courses,
was allowed into the department (Blass, 2004).
The
Department of Social Relations was a combination of social psychology,
sociology, anthropology, and clinical psychology. While
there, he was mentored by Gordon
Allport, and was a research assistant to Solomon Asch. Asch’s
influence on Milgram could be seen in
his dissertation and his later famous obedience experiments. Asch was conducting research on conformity,
where he tested whether a subject would give a wrong answer in order to
agree
with a group of confederates. For his
dissertation, Milgram replicated this study, but turned it into a
cross-cultural experiment by testing groups in Norway and France. He found the
Norwegians to conform more often than the French. An
interesting note, given the controversy
surrounding his work, was that he debriefed participants in his
dissertation
research. This included asking them for
their thoughts on the ethics of the project, which was an unusual
practice
among psychologists at the time. With
his dissertation completed, he found work at Yale University (Blass,
2004).
Adult Life
In the fall
of 1960, Milgram began working as an assistant professor at Yale
University. While there, his first plan for research was
to investigate how mescaline affected judgments about the aesthetics of
art. He had an interest in drugs both
scientifically and personally and would occasionally use peyote,
marijuana,
cocaine, amphetamines, or psilocybin. The
grant proposal for his study was declined,
but he was already busy
working on his plans to study obedience. Milgram
had wanted to make Asch’s, and his own
similar research, more
concrete. Those studies had only shown
conformity when choosing something Milgram considered unimportant,
whether
lines or tones were the same length; he wanted to know what would
happen when
the action was directly affecting another person. Having
finally come up with a method to test
obedience in such a situation, he submitted grant proposals to the
National
Science Foundation, National Institute of Mental Health, and Office of
Naval
Research. At the same time, he was
preparing pilot studies with students from one of his classes. Milgram again showed an unusual interest in
research ethics by including in the grant proposal a section about the
treatment
of participants, stating that they would be debriefed to insure their
well-being. When the NSF approved the
proposal in 1961, Milgram began his obedience experiments (Blass,
2004).
The year
the obedience study began was a good year for Milgram because he also
met his
wife Alexandra Menkin, who was a dancer and social worker.
They apparently lived a happy life, staying
together until Stanley’s
death, and
writing romantic letters to each other during the times they were
separated by Stanley’s
work. They had their first child Michelle
in 1964. Three years later, they had
their second child, Marc. Once the
children were born, Sasha became a homemaker. Though
very busy with work, Milgram was a
dedicated father, spending
much time on playing games, taking trips, and talking with his children. Stanley and Alexandra were also politically
active, sending letters to a number of politicians as well as the
school paper
at whichever school Milgram was employed. Despite
this activism and interest in the
problems of obedience to
authority, Milgram was generally against the student protests of the
1960s and
1970s. He considered these protests to
be both too destructive and aimed at the wrong group, because they were
conducted largely at schools (Blass, 2004).
In the
summer of 1963, Milgram was hired by Harvard to return to the
Department of
Social Relations, again as an assistant professor on a three year
contract. This contract was extended, in
1966, for one year as a lecturer, but he was not accepted for tenure at
the end
of the year. Due to the controversy
swirling around him from the obedience experiments and questions about
the
ethics involved in testing participants in such a stressful situation,
few
large universities made offers. But the
City University of New York, with its recently formed graduate program,
offered
him not only an entry directly into a full professorship, but also
asked him to
head the social psychology program for its Graduate Center. This later
became the social-personality program. Through
it all, the creative Milgram continued researching many and varied
topics. While at CUNY, in 1974, he
published a book
entitled Obedience to Authority, which
covered all of the experimental conditions from his obedience
experiments as
well as his theory of why people obeyed the experimenter.
He also made a number of films, some based on
his own work, others about social psychology in general and gave a
large number
of talks. He stayed at
CUNY, where he was a popular
choice to mentor doctoral dissertations, until his death from his fifth
heart
attack in 1984 (Blass, 2004).
Professional Accomplishments
Though
Milgram’s obedience experiments are his most famous work, they are far
from his
only work. Milgram gave around 140 talks
in his career; two-thirds were on topics other than obedience. The time Milgram used to write his Obedience
to Authority was actually
while on a Guggenheim Fellowship, which took him, with family, to Paris
for one of his studies of mental maps. He made his own film about the
obedience
experiments, entitled appropriately Obedience. CBS granted him a
$260,000 dollars in
funding to conduct a study on the effect of televised violence on
aggression,
which resulted in a book entitled Television
and Anti-Social Behavior: Field Experiments, co-authored with his
research
assistant, R. Lance Shotland. Later,
he
worked with Harry From to produce the movie, The City and
the Self in 1972. This movie was about
Milgram’s “The Experience
of Living in Cities,” which was an article about the differences in
behavior
brought about by urban environments. This
article was itself shortened from a speech he gave to the American
Psychological
Association’s 1969 convention. He and
From also collaborated to make four educational films about various
aspects of
social psychology (Blass, 2004).
Though
obedience was his most
famous research subject, Blass (2004) relates that Milgram investigated
a
number of other areas including the “small-world phenomenon.” This is the idea that two people, who do not
know each other, can be connected by a small number of acquaintances. The idea originated elsewhere, but Milgram
wanted to test it experimentally by having people try to send a folder
to a
person they did not know in a distant state only by giving the folder
to people
they knew. While many of the folders
never reached their destination, those that did averaged six
connections to get
the folder to its intended recipient. Milgram
also pioneered the lost letter technique, for polling a region without
social
desirability effects. In it, letters
addressed to fictitious groups indicating preference on an issue, such
as
politics, are left lying on the ground. If
significantly more letters are sent from a
region to one side, such
as the liberal sounding address, the region is determined to be liberal. Finally, he also conducted a number of
experiments on the urban life. These
included differences between city and rural life, finding that rural
residents
tended to be more helpful. Further,
while many urban people knew others by sight, they often did not feel
an
inclination to actually get to know those strangers.
Also, Milgram examined the way people
organized their environment by testing “mental maps.”
In New York,
he had participants look at pictures of sites and try to identify them. In Paris,
Milgram had residents draw maps of the city or explain where they would
most
likely meet someone (Blass, 2004).
Milgram’s
work appeared in a number of journals, including the Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Sociometry, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, as well
as more popular magazines, such as Psychology
Today. While at Harvard, he was
asked to write with Hans Toch (another professor) a chapter for the
prestigious Handbook of Social Psychology, which
Blass, in his biography of Milgram, asserts was one of his best pieces
of
writing. CUNY named him as Distinguished Professor of Psychology in
1980. While he was there, he chaired 14
doctoral
dissertations, which added to the two he had mentored at Harvard. In 1983, he was selected to be a Fellow of
the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences (Blass, 2004).
Contributions to Psychology
As
evidenced by Blass’s (2004) coverage of the experiments, Milgram’s
largest
contribution to psychology was through his obedience experiments. They so dominated his public image that
frequently people would refer to the “Milgram experiments” and mean
only his
obedience studies. The studies, through
nineteen different conditions, demonstrated how easily human beings
would hurt
one another with neither personal gain nor malice and against their own
morals. The subjects continued to
participate because
an authority instructed them that it was acceptable (Blass, 2004).
To better
understand the results, it is necessary to understand the experimental
situation. Participants were told
initially that they were going to help with a study about the way
learning was
affect by punishment. There were always at least three people in the
experiment,
two of whom were actors hired by Milgram to play parts.
One played the experimenter, who was
supposedly running the study and would instruct –but not compel- the
participant to continue if he or she resisted. The
second actor played the “learner,” who
answered questions asked by
the participant, and who the participants believed that they punished
when the
“learner” answered incorrectly. To carry
out the punishment, participants were instructed to push switches on a
large
box which the experimenter told them sent different voltages of
electricity to
electrodes connected to the “learner’s” hand, however nothing actually
happened
to the “learner.” The experiment’s
participants were always the teacher, and were given questions to ask
the
“learner” and were instructed on how to punish the “learner.” The box itself had switches labeled for 15
and 450 volts, with one switch for each 15 volt increment in between,
with
secondary labels for sets of switches such as “Intense Shock” (Blass,
2004).
Among other
factors, the conditions varied whether the participant could see the
“learner”
or not and the way the learner complained about the supposed shocks. In a condition where the “learner,” was in
another room and only complained twice by banging on the wall but said
nothing,
65% of participants used all of the shock switches including ones
marked
“Danger Severe Shock” and “XXX”. Even
when the learner was in the same room and participants had to
physically place
the screaming “learner’s” hand on a shock plate to receive the supposed
shocks
and could see him resist and cry out in agony, 30% of participants
continued
through all the switches. The condition
bearing perhaps the greatest parallels to people not resisting
authority, in
which the participant did not have to push the shock switches but only
helped
in other ways while a third actor controlled the switches, 92.5% of the participants continued to the end
(Blass, 2004).
The
obedience experiments had many
impacts beyond the actual results. Despite
Milgram’s concern for ethical treatment of his participants, many
people harshly
criticized the experiments. Some critics
even compared Milgram to the kind of destructive authority he was
trying to
study. His experiments certainly
contributed to the creation of the APA’s guidelines for treating
participants
and the government mandating the use of institutional review boards. In his biography of Milgram, Blass also noted
that social psychology is sometimes criticized as being unimportant, or
only
proving common knowledge. However, the
obedience experiments showed that both charges were untrue. Also, their
amazing
nature helped popularize social psychology specifically and psychology
in
general. The experiments have been the
subject of popular music, a TV movie, and Milgram’s book about the
experiment
was reviewed over 60 times including such popular outlets as the Los Angeles Times and London’s
The Spectator (Blass, 2004).
Even
though Milgram’s personal
interests were diverse, his greatest contribution to psychology came
through
one set of experiments, but in that set he contributed monumentally. He helped justify a science some dismiss as
unimportant, contributed to the understanding of humanity, and, even if
by way
of attacks against him, contributed to the consideration of the
treatment of
research participants.
|