Minorities who say “No!” in Experiments

Psychologist Stanley Milgram’s Authority Experiment is one of the most controversial experiments in psychology. In this experiment conducted in the 1960s, Milgram aimed to see how people submit to authority and how they continue to do it with a sense of duty even if they think what they are doing is wrong. One of the main factors that triggered this experiment was the effort to understand what the Nazi soldiers did during the Second World War.

In the experiment, the participants were split into two groups as teachers and students — ​​but the participants identified as students were role-players who had previously signed up with Milgram. The participants (teachers), who were the main subjects, did not know this and were informed that they aimed to look at the learning effects of the students according to the punishments they received.

According to the experiment, they would ask questions to the students and give 15 volts of electricity for one wrong answer. This rate would increase with each wrong question. As the (acting) students gave the wrong answer, they reacted as if they were hurt by the (alleged) electricity, after a point they started screaming as the violence increased. There were participants who started to feel restless occasionally or after a point, some said that they could not continue. However, the officer said that they should continue with the same procedure each time and stated that if something happens, it is his responsibility, not the participant. More than 65% of those who participated in the experiment rated up to 450 volts, which (in real life) is deadly.

So, people who participated in a psychology experiment got to the point where they would kill others just because the authority said and wanted to. You can see a very similar approach in another controversial experiment, psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment.

Most of the discussions are based on this issue, but there are some articles that write that the people who said ‘no’ in these experiments are very in the background and that their attitudes should be considered too. People who refused to give electric shocks in Milgram’s experiment, or those who refused to show violence to detainees in Zimbardo’s experiment... For Daniel Putman, such an approach was an ideal example of moral courage.

They were few in number, yes, but there were such people, after all. But how could these people in the experiments differ from the majority?

Monica Worline, a researcher focusing on the answer to this question, first states that; Rather than seeing courage as a stand-alone, independent trait, evaluating it as a developing action within a context, taking into account environmental factors, may open different doors for us.

Worline talks about two concepts that are opposite to each other but also complement each other; participation in society and individuation. As social beings, yes, we are part of a society but we are also unique and separate beings as individuals. The work of Zimbardo or Milgram shows how easily people can come out of individuation by wearing a hat or a mask, a uniform. This shows once again the importance of culture and authority figures in workplaces.

Worline defines the relationship of these two approaches as constructive opposition — according to her; if we take steps towards individuation by helping people find their intrinsic motivation, supporting them in determining their own destiny, and strengthening their decision-making skills; then people can use their capacities for the common good of the society and we can see much more courageous actions.