Would you ever administer an electrical shock to a person because you were told to do so by a medical professional? What if it was because the individual gave an incorrect response?
This is the gist of Milgram’s electric shock experiment. In short, he examines participants’ willingness to follow directions from those who hold a position of authority. I found the study to be very interesting (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Especially within the context of power and influence of our PSU WC lesson commentary (2021). The contents of this lesson are not covered within Northouse’s (2019) text, but there is ample information available through the PSU WC lesson commentary (2021) as well as in other chapters from the text. Milgram’s experiment is a great way to further understand and visualize the concepts of power and influence.
Figure 1
The Milgram Experiment: A Visual
To begin, it is important to understand what power and influence are and how they differ. House (1984) and Bass (1990) define power as having the aptitude to impact or the potential to cause change within others (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Alternatively, influence is “the change in a target agent’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors as a result of influence tactics” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7, p. 2). In fewer words, power is the ability to cause change, whereas influence is the caliber of change that actually occurs.
Regarding the Milgram experiment, in the beginning, there were psychologists telling subjects what they would be doing, and I was unsure how much of it was true. I do not believe I would have considered deception at all if I would have been in the participants’ shoes. Like most people, including those in the Milgram experiment, I tend to take things a doctor, scientist, or psychologist says to be true. We are taught from a young age to respect our elders and those in authority. Additionally, we as a society have been so conditioned that we even show respect to people if they are dressed professionally (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). This results in not questioning the truthfulness or factual basis of things said by people we respect.
In light of this, I believe this is a prime example of power. French and Raven (1959) defined various bases of power, but the main bases of this study are legitimate, expert and reward power (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Legitimate power is defined as a formal authority, or in other words, it is power based on the assigned role (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Expert power is a different way of saying that knowledge is power (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). On this basis, power belongs to the experts. Lastly is reward power, this is a function of withholding a desired outcome until the required tasks are completed (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Each of these is demonstrated to some degree in the Milgram experiment, with legitimate and expert power being the most prominent.
Additionally, there are influence tactics. Influence tactics are behaviors used to create attitude, opinion or behavior changes (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). It is important to recall that power is the potential to influence people and the influence tactics are the actions that make it happen (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). There were nearly a dozen influence tactics spelled out in the PSU WC lesson commentary (2021), but only two of them fit into the context of this experiment. Pressure and legitimizing tactics are the only ones that could be applied to this experiment. Pressure tactics involve intimidating an individual as a means of influencing them (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Pressure tactics can involve removing or providing an incentive. Legitimizing tactics occur when “requests are made based on one’s position or authority” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7, p. 6). Notice that both of these are very similar to reward and legitimate power. Reward power and pressure tactics are comparable to each other because they both involve an incentive or punishment (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Additionally, legitimate power and legitimizing tactics are also comparable as they have nearly identical names and defining factors (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7).
An illustration of legitimate power in the Milgram experiment is the fact that the participants thought they had equal chances of being the “teacher” or the “learner.” In actuality, the experiment was rigged so the participants were always “teachers,” and the “learners” were always confederates (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Do not let the “teacher” role deceive you, this role meant they had to adhere to the experimenter’s instructions, not that they were in charge of the situation. The experimenters always instructing the “teachers” is an example of how legitimate power and legitimizing tactics were exercised in the experiment in order to create the outcome of obedient behavior.
Figure 2
Subject = Teacher, Fake Subject = Learner, Experimenter = Experimenter
Similarly is the use of expert power. The participants, who were the teachers, felt pressured to continue the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). This was done through the verbiage used by the experimenters. They did this by using severe statements such as, “The experiment requires that you continue” (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). However, these statements often did not come into play until the higher voltage levels, which is when the participants began feeling significantly more uncomfortable with the process. I would argue that until this point, many of the participants complied on the basis of trusting the expert [experimenter], as he had the most knowledge about the situation. Although this is a demonstration of expert power, it is the legitimizing tactics that once again actually creates the result of obedient behavior.
Lastly is the concept of reward power and pressure tactics. It is worth discussing because there was a cash reward offered for participating in the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). It is very important to note that such offers are not contingent on completing the experiment. So, while it is possible that the participants completed the task simply for monetary gain, I do not believe this to be the main motive. Especially considering the responses of the participants after they were debriefed. Not one of them mentioned that they only kept going to receive the reward (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Regardless, the reward power is the potential of creating change. If any of the participants were motivated by the monetary reward, then their actions were a result of pressure tactics.
So what is the difference? Well, that is exactly it. The two are easy to define by definition, but in real life the two go hand in hand. Another way to understand these terms could be like this: power can be viewed as the appearance of having influence. Results are the outcome of actually having influence.
Prior to this video, I had never heard of this experiment before. This led me to believe, just like the test subjects, that the man in the chair was truly being electrocuted. Perhaps I missed something at the very beginning of the video, but I rather enjoyed not being omniscient while watching. It allowed me to put myself in the subjects’ shoes while watching. Obviously, I caught on after the first guy, but I tried to not focus on what I knew. Instead, I tried to focus on the subjects’ reactions and how I thought I would react if I were in their place. It was interesting that the man commentating on the video pointed out the laughter the subjects often produced. Often people do find humor in another person’s pain, an example of this is the show “Ridiculousness” on MTV (2011). However, the humor is often lost, quickly, when the person recognizes the other person may actually be harmed. At least that has been my experience in watching the show. As mentioned, there were several individuals in the experiment who displayed laughter. They also may have “laughed” as an effort to express their discomfort and attempt to break the tension of inflicting pain on a stranger.
Another aspect of the study I found to be interesting is the voltage different subjects considered to be “too much.” One subject refused to go on at a voltage around 145, yet another did not consider the experiment to be too extreme until over 300 volts (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Could this be due to slightly varying levels of “encouragement” from the experimenter? Or instead, could it be that different people value and react to different bases of power differently?
To go along with this, some of the gentlemen took little to no convincing to continue zapping their counterpart; whereas others took a great deal of persuasion, and some refused to continue all together. One subject was particularly unique, the man who only agreed to continue with the high voltage (400+) because the experimenter assured him that he would not be held responsible should anything go wrong (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). This man continued to administer the shocks only because the responsibility was in the hands of the man with a lab coat, which is yet another demonstration of yielding to legitimate and expert power. It is interesting to note that when the experiment was over the same man appeared to be quite taken aback at his own actions. This realization occurred when the experimenters later asked him about who was administering the shock and who made him continue the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021).
So how does this tie into real life? Great question.
I think each and every one of us has been in a situation where someone with more power, higher titles, more experience, and such used those things “against” us. They coerced, or attempted to coerce, us into doing things that we wouldn’t otherwise. Perhaps this looks like peer pressure, or maybe it looks like receiving a vaccine you aren’t sure about as a means to create job security. Many times in life we read books and are taught to look for the moral of the story. Do we still do that? What if we look at this and ask ourselves what can we learn from this experiment? Sometimes it is more than the data collected. Sometimes it is more than the definitions. As noted in the film, many of the participants regret their actions during the debriefing period (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). What might we regret when we are reflecting back on our own lives in 50 or 60 years?
Generally speaking, Milgram’s experiment is a great way to further understand and visualize the concepts of power and influence. The main difference between the two is that power involves the capacity to create change and influence involves the degree of actual change that occurs. I think individuals today are more likely to question people with authority than they were at the time of this experiment. In other words, I believe people are more hesitant to blindly trust those with power now than they were in the past. I also think people in today’s society would bow out of the experiment earlier than before. Now, people tend to focus more on themselves and what they want to do; therefore, I believe they are less likely to be convinced to continue doing something they do not want to do. In addition to this, I have also noticed a diminishing amount of respect people have for those in authority. This would also make it more challenging for this experiment to be executed as planned. I do not believe the experiment would go over as smoothly today, if it were to be permitted at all. However, the study has proven to be an excellent resource for psychology, and in today’s context, the study of power and influence.
References
Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk. 2016, April 25. The milgram experiment 1962 full documentary. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0&t=658s
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790597
Superjacket Productions. (Producer). (2011). Ridiculousness [Television series]. Los Angeles, CA: MTV