Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Explanation: making a statement in relation to an event, a state, a change or an action that was described before by a deviating statement. The statement will often try to involve circumstances, history, logical premises, causes and causality. See also description, statements, theories, understanding, literal truth, best explanation, causality, cause, completeness._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanley Milgram on Explanation - Dictionary of Arguments
Haslam I 117 Explanations/experiment//Milgram: studies, Milgram places considerable emphasis on the tension that arises in the studies (>Experiment/Milgram) as participants are torn between ‘the competing demands of two persons: the experimenter and the victim’ (Milgram, 1963(1): 378), and he considers a wealth of factors that pull them towards the one or the other. Factors: a) the importance and prestige of the research b) the status and prestige of the researcher. Obedience: (…) obedience does not just rely on who the experimenter is, but on the relationship between the participant and the experimenter. Thus, Milgram uses the notion of ‘incipient group formation’ as an important element in explaining the effects of proximity on obedience (Milgram, 1965(2): 64). In the remote and voice-feedback variants, experimenter and teacher are alone together in the same room and this helps them bond. Relationship between the participant and the fellow actor-teachers: ‘there is identification with the disobedient confederates and the possibility of falling back on them for social support when defying the experimenter.’ (Milgram 1965 b(3): p. 133). The way that the physical environment impacts on the configuration of social relationships in the studies plays an important part in determining which voice the participant will heed and which he will ignore. Haslam I 118 Alternative explanation/Milgram: “After witnessing hundreds of ordinary people submit to the authority in our own experiments, I must conclude that Arendt’s conception of the banality of evil comes clo*ser to the truth than one might dare imagine. The ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a sense of obligation – a conception of his duties as a subject – and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies.” (Milgram 1974(4): p. 6) Banality of evil/Arendt: Milgram was influenced by Hannah Arendt’s reports of the trial of Adolf Eichman[n] in The New Yorker, later published as Eichman[n] in Jerusalem (Arendt, 1963/1991)(5). Arendt: Eichmann and his ilk, she suggested, were moved less by great hatreds than by the petty desire to do a task well and to please their superiors. Indeed, they concentrated so much on these tasks that they forgot about their consequences. For this phenomenon Arendt coined the formulation of the “banality of evil”. (Arendt 1963/1994(5): p.287). >Obedience/Milgram. Reicher/Haslam: we really have no firm understanding of why people behaved as they did in the studies (see also Miller, 2016(6); Reicher, Haslam and Miller, 2014(7)). What is clear, however, is that any account must be inadequate if it suggests that there is something inherent in the human psyche which compels us to obey. A convincing explanation must be one that is rich enough to explain the complex patterning of obedience and disobedience that Milgram discovered in the process of worrying the phenomenon to death. 1. Milgram, S. (1963) ‘Behavioral study of obedience’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371–8. 2. Milgram, S. (1965a) ‘Liberating effects of group pressure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1: 127–34. 3. Milgram, S. (1965b) ‘Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority’, Human Relations, 18: 57–76. 4. Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York, NY: Harper & Row. 5. Arendt, H. (1963/1994) Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin. 6. Miller, A.G. (2016) ‘Why are the Milgram experiments still so famous — and controversial?’, in A.G. Miller (ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford. pp. 185–223. 7. Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A. and Miller, A.G. (2014) ‘What makes a person a perpetrator? The intellectual, moral, and methodological arguments for revisiting Milgram’s research on the influence of authority’, Journal of Social Issues, 70: 393–408. Stephen Reicher and S. Alexander Haslam, „Obedience. Revisiting Milgram’s shock experiments”, in: Joanne R. Smith and S. Alexander Haslam (eds.) 2017. Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Milgram, Stanley Haslam I S. Alexander Haslam Joanne R. Smith Social Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2017 |
||
> Counter arguments against Milgram
> Counter arguments in relation to Explanation
