EXPERIMENTER: Yes.
MR. MARCH: He’ll stay down here, I hope (pointing to lower level shocks).
EXPERIMENTER: Well, that depends on you, Mr. March. It depends on the progress you make in the lesson.
MR. MARCH: Well, would you go as high as 75 volts?
EXPERIMENTER: Possibly, yes. It depends on the number of mistakes . . .
MR. MARCH: Would you go as high as 120?
EXPERIMENTER: Yes, it’s possible. . . .
MR. MARCH: What’s the most shock I might receive?
EXPERIMENTER: Well, this depends again on the progress you make in the lesson.
MR. MARCH: Just saying that I don’t do too well, how much could I receive?
EXPERIMENTER: Well, it’s conceivable that the teacher would have to go to the end of the board, if the experiment calls for this. But . . . this depends completely on the progress you . . . make in the lesson.
MR. MARCH: I’m a little reluctant to take shocks that strong. I’m willing to do it down here (pointing to lower shocks). You know, 15 volts.
EXPERIMENTER: To be frank, we’ve had some difficulty arranging enough people to volunteer for this particular experiment because of the shock.
MR. MARCH: I can see why.
EXPERIMENTER: So much difficulty that I’ve been tempted to become a learner myself in one of these things. To be frank, we have to complete this condition by this evening. And we are short. If we don’t have everyone cooperating with us and go through the experiment, we are not going to finish off the condition this evening. So, therefore, I would really appreciate your cooperation.
MR. MARCH: If I could get some assurance. If you’d go through it first, for example, and you showed me that you could take the shocks, then I would definitely do it. If someone would show that he could take these shocks.
EXPERIMENTER: HOW about this, Mr. March? If we run one experiment with me as the learner, would you then be willing to go through the experiment as the learner?
MR. MARCH: If you went through it just the way I would have to go through it? Getting the shocks and all?
EXPERIMENTER: The whole business.
MR. MARCH: If I saw you do it, and I saw you come out on your own two feet, I would do it.
EXPERIMENTER: All right, why don’t we do that? Actually, this will help us out. It will be two experiments rather than one, and it will help us meet the quota by tonight. Why don’t we do it that way, then? I will go through the experiment first. And as soon as I complete the experiment, then you will be the learner. O.K.?
MR. MARCH: Yeah.
EXPERIMENTER: O.K., fine.
MR. MARCH: If you go through it and you can take it, I can take it.
The experimenter gives additional instructions to the naïve subject seated at the shock generator; then he assists the experimenter by strapping him into the electric-chair apparatus, applying the electrode paste, etc. Here is the transcript beginning at the point when the experimenter demands to be let out:
(150 volts administered)
EXPERIMENTER (shouts): That’s enough, gentlemen.
SUBJECT: I don’t blame you.
MR. MARCH: Oh, no, let’s go on. Oh, no, come on, I’m going to have to go through the whole thing. Let’s go. Come on, let’s keep going.
SUBJECT: (to the experimenter): What do you say?
MR. MARCH (interrupting): He said I might have to take it to 450. I want to see if he can do it.
SUBJECT: The man can’t take it, though. There’s no sense in doing it, you know what I mean.
MR. MARCH: Oh, no.
SUBJECT (to Mr. March): I’ll let you call it quits anytime you want to. Right? How’s that?
MR. MARCH: He said we have to learn it perfectly.
SUBJECT: Now, I don’t want to make the man suffer, now. Look, we’re going up pretty high. You’re going up to 165.
MR. MARCH: He said you have to learn it perfectly. He said you could go up all the way.
SUBJECT: Well, I’ll leave it up to him. If he don’t want to, then we’ll stop.
EXPERIMENTER: Please, let’s call it off.
SUBJECT: All right.
(Subject immediately goes into cubicle where experimenter is strapped into chair and releases him. Mr. March continues insisting that the experiment go on.)
MR. MARCH: Didn’t you say to me that . . .
EXPERIMENTER: Regardless of what I said, I’m calling it off.
SUBJECT: (warmly, as the experimenter is being released): That’s really something. I could feel those shocks myself. Every time I pushed that button. You were going up pretty high. You know the sample you gave me was pretty bad and that was, what? Seventy-five? And he went all the way up to 160.
Mr. March’s instructions to shock the experimenter were totally disregarded, as Table 4 shows. At the first protest of the shocked experimenter, every subject broke off, refusing to administer even a single shock beyond this point. There is no variation whatsoever in response. Further, many subjects literally leapt to the aid of the experimenter, running into the other room to instrap him. Subjects often expressed sympathy for the experimenter, but appeared alienated from the common man, as if he were a madman.
Many subjects explained their prompt response on humane grounds, not recognizing the authority aspect of the situation. Apparently, it is more gratifying for the subjects to see their action as stemming from personal kindness than to acknowledge that they were simply following the boss’s orders. When asked what they would do if a common man were being shocked, these subjects vehemently denied that they would continue beyond the point where the victim protests; they do not correctly assess the weight of authority in their decision. Many of the actions that individuals take in daily life, which appear to them to flow from inner moral qualities, are no doubt similarly prompted by authority.
We have examined three experiments in which a common man, rather than an authority, instructs another individual to administer shocks. In the first experiment, the learner himself, to prove his manliness, demanded that the experiment be continued, while the experimenter called it to a halt. Not a single subject went along with the learner’s demand to be shocked further. In the second experiment, in the absence of the experimenter, but with his general blessings, a common man attempted to prescribe increasing shock levels for another participant, despite the victim’s protests. Sixteen of the twenty subjects refused to follow him. In the third experiment, a common man ordered shocks against the authority. The moment the authority called a halt to the procedure, all subjects stopped immediately, totally disregarding the common man’s callous orders.
These studies confirm an essential fact: the decisive factor is the response to authority, rather than the response to the particular order to administer shocks. Orders originating outside of authority lose all force. Those who argue that aggressive motives or sadistic instincts are unleashed when the command to hurt another person is given must take account of the subjects’ adamant refusal to go on in these experiments. It is not what subjects do but for whom they are doing it that counts.
Double Authority
The focus of conflict thus far has been between an ordinary person and an authority. Let us now see what happens when authority itself is in conflict. In real life, we sometimes have a choice among authorities, and we ought to look at this phenomenon within the experiment. It is possible that when different authorities simultaneously call for opposing lines of action, a person’s own values will prevail and determine which authority he follows. Or perhaps the net outcome will be a compromise between the two conflicting authorities. Conceivably, this situation will lead to heightened conflict in the subject, who must decide not only whether or not to shock the victim but also which authority to follow. We may also learn something of the circumstances under which the effective exercise of authority is possible, and when it is not.
Experiment 15: Two Authorities: Contradictory Commands
In this variation when the subject arrived at the
laboratory he was confronted with two experimenters, each clad in a gray technician’s coat, who alternated in reciting the instructions. The two experimenters were of approximately the same age and height, but one (Experimenter I) gave the appearance of being slightly softer in manner than the other (Experimenter II). The usual victim—our rotund accountant—served in this experiment and was duly strapped into his chair. Everything proceeded as in the standard condition. Both experimenters were seated behind their control table, and both appeared active in recording responses. Their seeming accord came to an abrupt end at the 150-volt level. (It is to be recalled that it is at this point that the victim emits his first truly vehement protest.) One experimenter gives the usual command to proceed with the experiment. However, the second experimenter indicates precisely the opposite, directing his remark at the naïve subject.
The pressure applied by the malevolent authority is no less than that in other conditions. He prods the subject to continue, indicating that he has no other choice in the matter. But the thrust of his command is undercut by the second authority, who proclaims exactly the opposite.
The net effect was less strained than we might have expected. The experimenters appeared as two bosses who disagreed and were equally convinced of the correctness of their respective positions. Rather than arguing with each other, however, the experimenters focused their remarks on the subject. The subject thus found himself confronted with conflicting and equally authoritative commands. Here is a sample transcript of their exchange:
Fig. 16. Two authorities: contradictory commands.
EXPERIMENTER I: We’ll have to stop.
EXPERIMENTER II: The experiment requires that we go on. Please continue, teacher.
SUBJECT: Oh boy.
EXPERIMENTER I: The subject is in pain. We cannot go on with the experiment.
EXPERIMENTER II: We have no other choice gentlemen; the experiment requires that we go on. Please continue.
EXPERIMENTER I: Stop! We’re not to go on with the experiment.
EXPERIMENTER II: Mr. Williams, the experiment requires that we go on.
SUBJECT: I wish you two would make up your minds. (Pause.)
SUBJECT: Wait, wait. Which is it going to be? One says stop, one says go. Which one is it?
The subject is confronted with two incompatible prescriptions for action, each issued by an authoritative figure. The outcome of the experiment is shown in Table 4 and is unequivocal. Of 20 subjects, one broke off before the disagreement and 18 stopped at precisely the point where the disagreement between the authorities first occurred. Another broke off one step beyond this point. It is clear that the disagreement between the authorities completely paralyzed action. Not a single subject “took advantage” of the instructions to go on; in no instance did individual aggressive motives latch on to the authoritative sanction provided by the malevolent authority. Rather, action was stopped dead in its tracks.
It is important to note, in contrast, that in other variations nothing the victim did—no pleas, screams, or any other response to the shocks—produced an effect as abrupt and unequivocal. The reason is that action flows from the higher end of a social hierarchy to the lower; that is, the subject is responsive to signals from a level above his own, but indifferent to those below it. Once the signal emanating from the higher level was “contaminated,” the coherence of the hierarchical system was destroyed, along with its efficacy in regulating behavior.
An interesting phenomenon emerged in this experiment. Some subjects attempted repeatedly to reconstruct a meaningful hierarchy. Their efforts took the form of trying to ascertain which of the two experimenters was the higher authority. There is a certain discomfort in not knowing who the boss is, and subjects sometimes frantically sought to determine this.
Experiment 16: Two Authorities: One as Victim
In the variation just described, every effort was made to equalize the apparent authority of the two experimenters, by selecting identical garb and equal seating positions and by apportioning the experimental instructions equally to each of them. Thus not merely the status of each but also the position of each within the structure of the situation was made to appear as identical as possible. Yet there is an interesting question raised by this experiment. Is it merely the fiat designation of authority or is it the equality of position in concrete terms that accounts for the experimental effects? That is, does authority reside merely in the designation of rank or is it in significant degree dependent upon the actual position of the individual within the structure of action in the situation? Consider, for example, that a king may possess enormous authority while on his throne, yet not be able to command when cast into prison. The basis of his power resides in part in his actual functioning as an authority, with all its accouterments. Moreover, given the fact that conflicting multiple authorities cannot jointly occupy a similar locus in a hierarchical structure, situational advantages accruing to one or another of the conflicting authorities may be sufficient to shift allegiance to him. Let us leave this somewhat speculative discussion and go on to an experimental examination of this issue.
This variation is similar in general design to the one described above, in that the subject confronts two experimenters, alike in appearance and apparent authority. However, at the outset, while the two experimenters and the subject are waiting for the fourth participant to appear, a phone call is received in the laboratory. The fourth participant, it appears, has canceled his appointment. The experimenters express disappointment, indicating that they have a particular need to complete the accumulation of data that night. One suggests that an experimenter might serve as a subject—that, though a poor substitute, he would at least enable them to meet their experimental quota. The experimenters flip a coin to determine which one will serve in this way. The loser then draws with the subject to determine who will be teacher and who learner. The rigged drawing makes the experimenter the learner, and he is strapped into the chair. He performs like the regular victim. Thus, at 150 volts he shouts that he has had enough and demands to be let out of the experiment. However, the second experimenter insists that the experiment continue. Here there is an important difference from the previous double-authority experiment: the two authorities issuing contradictory commands are no longer in symmetrical positions within the structure of the situation. One has been defined into the victim’s role, and the other has been defined, by the flip of a coin, into the superordinate status.
Fig. 17. Two authorities: one as victim.
The results of this experiment are shown in Table 4.
What occurs is quite striking: the experimenter, strapped into the electric chair, fares no better than a victim who is not an authority at all. True, virtually all subjects either break off completely when he demands to be let out or completely disregard him. Every score save one falls into this all-or-none pattern. But in total he is no better treated than an ordinary person in the same situation. Apparently, he has lost whatever power he possessed as an authority.
Consider, then, the following three results:
1. When an ordinary man gave the order to shock an experimenter, not a single person carried out the order after the experimenter’s first protest (Experiment 14).
2. When two experimenters of equal status, both seated at the command desk, gave incompatible orders, no shocks were delivered at all (Experiment 15).
3. When an experimenter commanded a subject to administer shocks to his colleague, the colleague’s protests had no more effect than those of an ordinary person (Experiment 16).
The first question is, Why did the experimenter, placed in the role of victim, lose his authority in this situation, while he did not in Experiment 15?
The most pervasive principle is that the subject’s action is directed by the person of higher status. Simultaneously there is pressure to find a coherent line of action in this situation. Such a line becomes evident only when there is a clear hierarchy lacking contradictions and incompatible elements.
Comparison with Experiment 14
In Experiment 14, in breaking off at the experimenter’s first protest, the subject observed the principle that action is controlled by the individual possessing higher status. Mr. March’s effort to force shocks on the experimenter was a fiasco. As soon as the experimenter demanded that he be let out, all subjects did so. In no sense did Mr. March’s countermanding orders constitute serious competition. He lacked the status to be taken seriously and appeared as a child who attempts to command the army by jumping into the general’s boots. Inevitably, action was controlled by the person of higher authority.
Comparison with Experiment 15
In Experiment 15, when two experimenters gave contradictory commands from the command desk, all action was paralyzed, for there was no clearly discernible higher authority, and consequently no means to determine what line of action to follow. It is the essence of a viable authority system that an individual takes orders from a higher source and executes them toward a stipulated object. The minimum conditions for the operation of this system are an intelligible and coherent command. When there are contradictory commands, the subject finds out who is the boss and acts accordingly. When there is no basis for a decision on this matter, action cannot proceed. The command is incoherent at its source. The circuitry of authority must be free of such contradictions if it is to be effective.
Why does one experimenter fully lose his authority in Experiment 16? Subjects are predisposed to perceive clear hierarchies lacking contradictions and incompatible elements. They will, therefore, use whatever bases are possible to ascertain and respond to the higher authority. Within the situation:
1. One experimenter has willingly assumed the role of victim. Thus he has temporarily diminished his commanding status, vis-à-vis the other experimenter.
2. Authority is not a mere fiat designation but the occupancy of a particular locus of action within a socially defined occasion. The king in the dungeon finds that the compliance he could elicit from his throne has evaporated. The ex-experimenter finds himself in the physical situation of the victim and confronting an authority seated in the command chair.
Obedience to Authority Page 11