Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science
By S. A. Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher, Megan E. Birney. 2014
111 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Milgram's classic studies are widely understood to demonstrate people's natural inclination to obey the orders of those in authority. However, of the prods that Milgram's Experimenter employed to encourage participants to continue the one most resembling an order was least successful. This study examines the impact of prods more closely by manipulating them between-participants within an analogue paradigm in which participants are instructed to use negative adjectives to describe increasingly pleasant groups. Across all conditions, continuation and completion were positively predicted by the extent to which prods appealed to scientific goals but negatively predicted by the degree to which a prod constituted an order. These results provide no support for the traditional obedience account of Milgram's findings but are consistent with an engaged followership model which argues that participants’ willingness to continue with an objectionable task is predicated upon active identification with the scientific project and those leading it.
Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3edfc85f6298acb2476c336cec5597f5ca7df218
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Social Psychology
In Sociology and Political Science
- Joanne R Smith
- Winnifred R. Louis
- Fergus G. Neville
- J. Drury
- Thomas Bauwens
- Martijn van Zomeren
- M. Hogg
- S. van der Linden
Citations in the corpus
- Social norms, social identities and the COVID‐19 pandemic: Theory and recommendations (2021, background): “…if people only follow guidance when they are visible to authority, and if the public resist commands which are seen as unreasonable or damaging to the good of their social groups (Bonell et al., 2020; Haslam et al., 2014; Jackson, Posch, et al., 2020; Mooijman et al., 2017; Van Bavel et al., 2020).”