Ammarah Sakrani

Born in 1993, Stanley Milgram was an American psychologist best known for his study on obedience conducted at Yale University in 1961.

Obedience is any behaviour change in an individual produced by the demands of someone to be in a higher level of perceived authority than themselves. Milgram discerned obedience as a deeply rooted social tendency and stated it was necessary for communal living. He suggested that the tendency to obey authority may be so strong that it could overpower an individual’s personal conscience or morality.

Intrigued by this, he set out and conducted his own infamous study, judging whether normal, everyday individuals would obey an individual with perceived authority even if it meant harming someone else. Milgram advertised in a paper that he was conducting a study on memory and learning to recruit participants.

Before starting his investigation, Milgram had 14 Yale University psychology students predict the responses of 100 fictitious Americans in a range of occupations. With a mean estimate of 1.2%, all respondents thought that only a very small percentage of participants would produce the maximum voltage of 450 V.

In short, participants were told the study aimed to explore the effects of punishment on learning, an area with limited prior research. The participant and a confederate (another individual pretending to be a participant) had to draw slips to determine their roles. Little did the participant know; the slips were rigged to always become the ‘teacher’ while the actor played the role of the ‘learner’. After that, the learner sat in an ‘electric chair’. To demonstrate the equipment, a real 45 V sample shock was given to the participant in the adjacent room. The learner had to memorise word pairs and use a switchboard to choose their replies. The participant announced the voltage each time they delivered increasing electric shocks for each incorrect answer.

The student began to pound on the wall in protest at 300V and 315V, and then stopped responding. Participants were told to keep giving shocks and to consider no reaction to be erroneous. When subjects resisted, the researcher employed standardised prods that progressed from courteous pleas to firm orders. They assured them that there would be no long-term tissue damage from the shocks, reducing fears of injury.If a person refused to continue after the fourth prod, the study was over. Participants were then questioned and “debriefed,” which involved meeting with the learner to ensure he had not suffered any psychological harm that the study might have caused.

The results of the study show that 65% of the participants were willing to deliver the highest electric shock – 450V to another person. 100% of the participants went up to 300V, which was when the victim first pounded on the wall. Milgram concluded different possible reasons as to why individuals would obey:

• Perceived authority figure
• Pressure to conform
• Distancing effect
• Transfer of responsibility

He also concluded that the obedience may have occurred because of the study’s prestigious location (Yale University), the experiment’s perceived value to science, a sense of obligation and commitment to the experimenter, and the participants’ payment to participate, which may have increased their obligation to participate.

These same psychological processes may be seen at work in today’s online environments, where celebrities and other authority figures set trends and mould opinions, putting pressure on followers to fit in.

Perceived authority and the pressure to conform

Our behaviour is influenced by perceived authority, such as celebrities and influencers. They create a desire to fit in by curating an atmosphere that supports specific behaviours or viewpoints.

Brands frequently leverage perceived authority—using celebrities or experts in that particular field to sway consumers’ purchasing decisions in marketing. Consumers are more likely to follow a brand when they see an expert or someone they like promoting it.

This need to conform in is similar to Milgram’s Study, in which subjects blindly obeyed the authority figure’s orders. According to Milgram, a high number of participants continued to obey instructions mostly because they felt under pressure to fulfil the role that had been assigned to them so as to not disappoint the expectations. The role of social media is defined by the expectations of the community and the need for approval; users are rewarded based on the number of likes, comments, and followers they receive, which creates a system where popularity feels authoritative and encourages users to follow or adopt popular opinions.

This validation stems from normative social influences. Similar to how Milgram’s participants feared facing the authoritative figure, normative social influence occurs when someone complies out of a desire to fit in and be liked. The participants believed that they had no choice but to keep giving shocks. Informational influence is the second branch of conformity, where people conform out of fear of being noticed or seen as “dumb” because they think others are right and have accurate information.

Another type of authority is provided by algorithms. Popular, trending, and viral information is given priority by social media algorithms, which restricts users’ exposure to a range of viewpoints by displaying content that supports their existing opinions. This promotes in-group thinking, which homogenises and narrows perspectives by rejecting alternative viewpoints.

Distancing effect and the transfer of responsibility

Another important factor is the role of the distancing mechanism. Participants in Milgram’s experiment found it easier to deliver shocks to the victim when they were physically separated from them. In the same way, users are less empathetic due to the anonymity and physical distance of the online environment, which facilitates perpetration of destructive behaviours such as trolling, harassment, and cyberbullying without having to see the direct results of their acts. This alienation is frequently made worse by platforms themselves, which obscure the effects of users’ activities in real life and construct a psychological barrier that enables people to defend or downplay their actions. Online violence may seem less personal and more abstract due to the absence of in-person interactions.

Similar to how Milgram’s subjects acquitted themselves of guilt (they did what they did because the experimenter told them), online anonymity releases people from personal accountability, which makes it easier for them to engage in toxic behaviours or follow dangerous trends. For example, cancel culture flourishes because of the participants’ sense of collective anonymity, which protects them from the repercussions of their behaviour. A dangerous herd mentality may result from this, in which harmful habits are encouraged to worsen due to a lack of accountability.

There is no denying the similarities to Milgram’s findings: just as participants in his study deferred to perceived authority figures, people today frequently follow the instructions of digital systems without considering the consequences. By looking at these links, we can see how Milgram’s research from the 1960s is still very applicable in understanding the difficulties associated with compliance and obedience in the digital age. Modern authority systems present moral dilemmas that highlight the significance of closely assessing the factors influencing human actions in more digital and linked environments.