70 likes | 635 Views
Obedience versus Conformity. Hierarchy : obedience occurs in a hierarchy of power, conformity takes place amongst peers Imitation : Conformity involves imitation, there is no imitation of authority in obedience
E N D
Obedience versus Conformity • Hierarchy: obedience occurs in a hierarchy of power, conformity takes place amongst peers • Imitation: Conformity involves imitation, there is no imitation of authority in obedience • Explicitness: Obedience involves commands and orders, group demands are implicit in conformity • Voluntarism: group members deny conformity, but embrace obedience
Milgram’s Obedience Model as an Explanation of the Holocaust • Disparity in time scale (1 hr. lab experiment vs. 12 yrs of the 3rd Reich, Milgram) • Oversimplified explanation (Mandel, 1998) • In Browning’s Ordinary men (1992), troops were given an out for extermination duties, but most still complied. Milgram’s partner study found a dramatic decrease in shock administration with a disobedient model • Germans volunteered (Goldhagen, 1996) for killing when volunteering was unnecessary. • Unlike the Nazis, there was no possibility of professional advancement in Milgram’s experiment
Milgram’s Obedience Model as an Explanation of the Holocaust (continued) • When given a chance, Milgram’s subjects went no higher than the first indication of discomfort (75 volts, Mandel, 1998). In contrasts with Nazi brutality, sadism, moral endorsement, enthusiasm, etc. • Is it correct to assume that humanity’s default position is inherently good, but situational press forces evil (Miale & Selzer, 2007). • Milgram’s subjects had ambiguity regarding learner’s suffering—experimenter assured them that learner was not being harmed. Nazi perpetrators knew they were harming/murdering victims. • Milgram’s subjects did not improvise their behaviour, unlike Nazis.
Milgram’s Obedience Model as an Explanation of the Holocaust (continued) • No evidence of conflicted obedience (over time—see Browning) in the events of the Holocaust. • Milgram’s subjects regarded learner as peer (random selection was believed to determine learner’s status), Nazis regarded victims as subhuman and deserving their fate. • Milgram’s subjects exhibited distress, but Nazis’ behaviour was consistent with their values (Fenigstein, 1998). Their proclamation of obedience should be viewed as the “obedience alibi (Mandel, 1998) • Milgram’s subjects exhibited ethical shame/regret, Nazis reveled in murder. Photographs were made of executions, perpetrators took pride in their crimes, boosted self-esteem, etc.