Understanding Willing Participants, Volume 2

Horrified by the Holocaust, social psychologist Stanley Milgram wondered if he could recreate the Holocaust in the laboratory setting. Unabated for more than half a century, his (in)famous results have continued to intrigue scholars. Based on unpublished archival data from Milgram’s personal collection, volume one of this two-volume set introduces readers to a behind the scenes account showing how during Milgram’s unpublished pilot studies he step-by-step invented his official experimental procedure—how he gradually learnt to transform most ordinary people into willing inflictors of harm. The open access volume two then illustrates how certain innovators within the Nazi regime used the very same Milgram-like learning techniques that with increasing effectiveness gradually enabled them to also transform most ordinary people into increasingly capable executioners of other men, women, and children. Volume two effectively attempts to capture how step-by-step these Nazi innovators attempted to transform the Führer’s wish of a Jewish-free Europe into a frightening reality. By the books’ end the reader will gain an insight into how the seemingly undoable can become increasingly doable

Understanding Willing Participants, Volume 2

Horrified by the Holocaust, social psychologist Stanley Milgram wondered if he could recreate the Holocaust in the laboratory setting. Unabated for more than half a century, his (in)famous results have continued to intrigue scholars. Based on unpublished archival data from Milgram’s personal collection, volume one of this two-volume set introduces readers to a behind the scenes account showing how during Milgram’s unpublished pilot studies he step-by-step invented his official experimental procedure—how he gradually learnt to transform most ordinary people into willing inflictors of harm. The open access volume two then illustrates how certain innovators within the Nazi regime used the very same Milgram-like learning techniques that with increasing effectiveness gradually enabled them to also transform most ordinary people into increasingly capable executioners of other men, women, and children. Volume two effectively attempts to capture how step-by-step these Nazi innovators attempted to transform the Führer’s wish of a Jewish-free Europe into a frightening reality. By the books’ end the reader will gain an insight into how the seemingly undoable can become increasingly doable

Firearms and Homicide: the Influence of the Weapon Substitution Hypothesis on the American Gun Control Debate

For several decades now the gun control literature in the United States has continued to produce conflicting accounts in regards to the availability of firearms on the U.S's high rate of homicide. This thesis proposes that this conflict is, in part, due to the implicit and continued influence of Wolfgang's (1958) 'weapon substitution hypothesis'. Wolfgang's hypothesis proposes that the intentions of an assailant, whether they be to kill or injure, determined the weapon selected. Since guns are recognised as being highly lethal, all assailants who use such weapons were believed by Wolfgang to have been highly determined to kill. Among other negative effects, it is argued that Wolfgang's hypothesis introduced a mind-set to this controversial research area that has continued to influence the opinions of academics from both sides of the debate. This mind-set revolves around the consensually held belief that if a firearm assailant is believed to have been determined to kill then they would have been capable of killing in the absence of firearms. Importantly, this belief implies that the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution is if a firearm assailant is determined to kill. This is unlikely to be true. Mischel (1968: 135) has argued: 'A person's relevant past behaviours tend to be the best predictors of his future behaviour in similar situations.' After adapting Mischel's logic to fit the weapon substitution debate, the following predictor was produced. The best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution to non-firearm weapons is whether people who had killed with firearms were as experienced at killing victims with non-firearm weapons as assailants who had actually killed with such weapons. This predictor was further developed into a more workable methodology that was capable of testing the validity of both Wolfgang's hypothesis and the consensually held belief it initiated. This methodology involved a comparison of the previous serious to fatal violent non-firearm convictions between those most likely to be determined firearm and knife killers. It was discovered that only 2.94 percent of those most likely to be determined firearm assailants and 25.23 percent of those most likely to be determined knife assailants had previous convictions for serious to fatal non-firearm assaults. This result was statistically significant to the p< 0.005 (Z score=2.84). After eliminating all other possible explanations for these results it was concluded that, in conflict with both Wolfgang's hypothesis and the consensually held belief, not all determined firearm assailants are likely to be capable of lethal weapon substitution. Furthermore, if some proportion of determined firearm assailants are unlikely to be capable of lethal weapon substitution, then those not so determined are likely to be even less capable. Therefore, it was concluded that inhibiting all potential firearm assailants from accessing guns would be likely to reduce the overall rate of homicide. However, this thesis was limited in being able to apply this conclusion to the United States because it was based on a New Zealand population. Nevertheless, it is argued that the perpetuation of the consensually held belief has inhibited the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution from being applied to a research area where prediction is of paramount importance. When the best possible predictor of lethal weapon substitution has not previously been applied, it therefore becomes more understandable why this research area is plagued by such controversy

Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiments: Towards an Understanding of Their Relevance in Explaining Aspects of the Nazi Holocaust

Two leading Holocaust historians, Yehuda Bauer and Christopher Browning, have in recent years independently asked how so many ordinary Germans (most of whom in the 1930s had been moderately anti-Semitic) could become by the early 1940s willing murderers of Jews. Social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, had years before been interested in finding answers to similar questions, and to that end in the early 1960s carried out his widely debated "Obedience to Authority" (OTA) experiments at Yale University. Drawing on previously unpublished material from Milgram's personal archive at Yale, this thesis investigates how Milgram developed his research idea to the point where, by the time he ran his first official experiment, he was able to convert the majority of his ordinary subjects into torturers of other people. It is argued that Milgram's experiments were in themselves structured as a bureaucratic microcosm, and say less about obedience to authority, per se, than about the ways in which people in an organisational context resolve a pressing moral dilemma. The thesis uses insights gained from Milgram's experimental innovations to assist in answering the question posed by Bauer and by Browning, focusing on the Nazis' progressive development of mass killing methods, from 1941 to 1944, during Operation Barbarossa and Operation Reinhard. It is shown how these methods were designed to diminish perpetrators' perceptual stimulation, in order to make the "undoable" increasingly "doable", in ways that were later reflected in Milgram's development of his own experimental methodology

Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiments: Towards an Understanding of Their Relevance in Explaining Aspects of the Nazi Holocaust

Two leading Holocaust historians, Yehuda Bauer and Christopher Browning, have in recent years independently asked how so many ordinary Germans (most of whom in the 1930s had been moderately anti-Semitic) could become by the early 1940s willing murderers of Jews. Social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, had years before been interested in finding answers to similar questions, and to that end in the early 1960s carried out his widely debated "Obedience to Authority" (OTA) experiments at Yale University. Drawing on previously unpublished material from Milgram's personal archive at Yale, this thesis investigates how Milgram developed his research idea to the point where, by the time he ran his first official experiment, he was able to convert the majority of his ordinary subjects into torturers of other people. It is argued that Milgram's experiments were in themselves structured as a bureaucratic microcosm, and say less about obedience to authority, per se, than about the ways in which people in an organisational context resolve a pressing moral dilemma. The thesis uses insights gained from Milgram's experimental innovations to assist in answering the question posed by Bauer and by Browning, focusing on the Nazis' progressive development of mass killing methods, from 1941 to 1944, during Operation Barbarossa and Operation Reinhard. It is shown how these methods were designed to diminish perpetrators' perceptual stimulation, in order to make the "undoable" increasingly "doable", in ways that were later reflected in Milgram's development of his own experimental methodology

The Milgram-Holocaust Linkage: Challenging the Present Consensus

Stanley Milgram's assertion that his “Obedience to Authority” (OTA) experiments replicated, in a laboratory setting, quintessential features of perpetrator behaviour during the Holocaust has been widely challenged. Most contemporary scholarship on this issue, known as the “Milgram-Holocaust (M-H) linkage”, argues that Milgram's experiments failed to capture important factors such as ideology, policy, bureaucracy and technology, which more fully explain perpetrator behaviour. However, it is argued here that when the obedience research programme is viewed from a different angle – that of being an emerging policy-driven bureaucratic process in pursuit of “scientific” goals with an impersonal means of inflicting harm – the interplay of factors such as ideology, policy, bureaucracy and technology did in fact play a central role in generating Milgram's high baseline completion rate. Hence, there is a much stronger theoretical connection between the OTA experiments and the Nazi state's perpetration of the Holocaust than the current scholarly consensus allows

Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority “Relationship” Condition: Some Methodological and Theoretical Implications

In May 1962, social psychologist, Stanley Milgram, ran what was arguably the most controversial variation of his Obedience to Authority (OTA) experiments: the Relationship Condition (RC). In the RC, participants were required to bring a friend, with one becoming the teacher and the other the learner. The learners were covertly informed that the experiment was actually exploring whether their friend would obey an experimenter’s orders to hurt them. Learners were quickly trained in how to react to the impending “shocks”. Only 15 percent of teachers completed the RC. In an article published in 1965, Milgram discussed most of the variations on his baseline experiment, but only named the RC in passing, promising a more detailed account in his forthcoming book. However, his 1974 book failed to mention the RC and it remained unpublished until François Rochat and Andre Modigliani discovered it in Milgram’s personal archive in 1997 at Yale University. Their overview of the RC’s procedure and results left a number of questions unanswered. For example, what were the etiological origins of the RC? Why did Milgram decide against publishing this experiment? And does the RC have any significant methodological or theoretical implications on the Obedience studies discourse? Based on documents obtained from Milgram’s personal archive, the aim of this article is to shed new light on these questions

Climate Catastrophe and Stanley Milgram’s Electric Shock “Obedience” Experiments: An Uncanny Analogy

Awareness of impending climate catastrophe has greatly increased over the last 30 years. Increasing awareness, however, has not translated into decreasing but instead increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This paper aims to shed new light on this perplexing and ultimately destructive positive correlation. It does so by applying a new interpretation of Milgram&rsquo;s Obedience to Authority &ldquo;electric shock&rdquo; experiments to the problem of climate catastrophe. This paper reveals that both the Obedience Studies and climate catastrophe share a crucial common denominator: both involve powerful figures utilising manipulative techniques of bureaucratic organisation to push and pull the functionary helpers below them into contributing to preconceived goal achievement. In both cases, for the functionary helpers to achieve the goals of the powerful, all must agree to contribute to the infliction of harm on a powerless group. Nearly all helpers choose to make their harmful contributions because they not only stand to personally benefit, they also suspect that&mdash;with so many other links in the chain participating in goal achievement&mdash;they can probably do so with total impunity. It is argued that this comparison may help to better understand the complex, self-reinforcing, yet ultimately destructive relationship shared between fossil fuel corporations, the ideological pursuit of economic growth, political impotence, rapacious consumer demand, and impending climate catastrophe