Psychology

This paper attempts to analyze two experiments, one focused on destructive obedience and the other on cognitive dissonance, their complementary perspectives in the decision-making as well as the different thought process of immoral behavior.

BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
Stanley Milgrams research first published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, involved forty males aged between 20 and 50 years of age, recruited from New Haven area.  They were obtained by responding to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University.  The participants represented a wide range of occupations, including postal clerks, high-school teachers, salesmen, engineers and laborers.  They were paid 4.50 for their participation in the experiment. The trial consisted of ordering a naive subject in the role of a teacher to administer increasingly more severe punishment to a confederate in the context of a learning experiment. Punishment is administered by means of a bogus shock generator with 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts.

Results.  Sixty-five percent of the participants obeyed and gave shocks up to 450 volts and 35 stopped sometime before 450 volts and refused to participate. Milgram believed that it is the situation that people find themselves in rather than their dispositions that best explain their actions.

EVALUATION OF PROCEDURE
Weaknesses. A major criticism of Milgrams study was his decision to recruit only male Americans, which resulted in a sample that did not reflect the general population despite taking subjects of different ages from a range of backgrounds.  Also, participants were limited to those who read the advertisement and volunteered for a laboratory experiment, it can be argued that those who replied would have significantly different personalities than those who did not and this would once again make an unrepresentative sample.

Another criticized facet of Milgrams work is concerned with ethics. The subjects were led to believe that they were giving real electric shocks to a real participant thus causing the subject to experience emotional conflict. Milgram stressed that the extraordinary anxiety and the striking reactions of tension and emotional strain generated by the procedures were not anticipated. It was supposed that the subject would simply stop or continue as his conscience dictated. Yet, this is not what happened. An additional ethical concern is the verbal prods used in the experiment which suggested that participants were not given the option to halt the experiment should they wish to. 

Strength.  Milgrams experiment showed notable control and made an impressive job of creating a realistic situation, for example the subjects believed that the roles of learner and teacher had been allocated fairly, by drawing lots, and that the assignments of roles were random. The subjects were convinced that they were actually administering electric shocks on another person. It is also important to note they all used the same apparatus and were subjected to the same verbal prods.

COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE
In Festinger and Carlsmith s classic 1959 experiment, also published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, students were asked to spend an hour on boring tasks like turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again. The tasks were designed to generate a negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenter requests some of them to do a favor. They were asked to talk to another subject, who is actually an actor, and persuade them that the tasks were motivating and fun. Some participants were paid 20 for this favor, another group was paid 1, and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.

Results. When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study, those in the 1 group rated them more positively than those in the 20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance among the contradictory cognitions, I convinced someone that the task was exciting, and I in fact found it boring. When paid only 1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the 20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.

Weakness.  The usage of money in the procedure to induce compliance can take on diverse meanings, each individual could have perceived the money differently, as a bribe, a reward or as compensation, and this can induce a corresponding attitude change. Also, one can argue that the large amount of 20 can induce suspicion for such a seemingly simple task.

Strength. The experiment involved subjects to not only vocally state opinion contrary to their personal judgment but also required convincing another person that their vocal statements are true. This creates a definitive situation where dissonance can strongly resonate and attitude change can be inferred.

COMPARISON
Both experiments observed individuals in situations where they were expected to do activities contrary to their moral standards, although in different degrees. Festinger and Carlsmith involved lying and Milgram required the more extreme behavior of inflicting pain on another individual.

Moreover, Festinger and Carlsmith observed internal change in opinion and Milgram focused on the external execution of a physical action. Both experiments consider the thought process of individuals in decision making.

ANALYSIS
Human beings will always find themselves in situations where they are faced with actively making a choice that may or may not coincide with their personal beliefs and moral standards. It is in this context that both experiments offer insight, Milgram was himself surprised at the results of his trials, saying in his book, Obedience to authority an experimental view, that this reveals the power of authority to triumph over conscience.

Milgrams trials on obedience show that people have a strong inclination to comply with authority, despite the strong occurrence of cognitive dissonance or discomfort between the conflicting moral stand, It is wrong to hurt someone, and the action I am hurting someone. The subjects were observed to sweat profusely, tremble, stutter, groan, dig fingernails into their flesh and succumb to nervous fits of laughter during the experiment, although despite these reactions they continued to follow instructions from the figure of authority. In Festinger and Carlsmiths trials the subjects who were offered 1 persuaded themselves that they initially misjudged the circumstances and downplayed the severity of their actions, amending the situation to convince themselves that no harm is done. These experiments show that in the thought process of an individual who is doing something wrong, situational attribution occurs. The subject distances himself from the action saying that he was not thinking, merely following orders or following instinct. After the commission of the wrong deed, the person reduces dissonance by exaggerating the importance of the action thinking that the knowledge or object obtained outweighs the discomfort he is causing, the person also minimizes the extent of damage or conflict caused.