What a Decades-Old Experiment Can Teach Us About Derek Chauvin and George Floyd

Stanley Milgram discovered that obedience to authority has a powerful hold.

By
92

It has been 60 years since Yale social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted his famous experiment on obedience to authority, but the trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on multiple criminal charges, including third-degree murder, for the death of George Floyd has given us new reason to look back at Milgram’s experiment. 

Chauvin’s trial will determine what, if any, legal responsibility he bears for the death last May 25 of Floyd. Milgram’s experiment leads us to a more difficult question: How was a single police officer, Derek Chauvin, able to kneel on Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes without being effectively challenged by the other police officers on the scene? 

Milgram began his experiment in July 1961, the same month that the trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi official who played a key role in transporting Jews to German extermination camps, started. Milgram’s experiment was designed to show how willing people were to obey authority even when what was asked of them was cruel. Eichmann’s trial dovetailed with Milgram’s concerns. The colorless Eichmann’s actions were the classic example of what the historian Hannah Arendt in her account of the trial, Eichmann in Jerusalem, called the “banality of evil,” and in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority, Milgram paid tribute to Arendt, noting that the concept of the banality of evil “comes closer to the truth than one might dare imagine.”

Milgram’s experiment consisted of taking volunteers and dividing them into the roles of teacher and learner. The division was planned so that the volunteer always ended up as teacher, while the learner was a paid participant. The volunteer was instructed by the experimenter to give electric shocks to the learner (a paid participant) for wrong answers. How far would the teacher go in obeying the experimenter was the issue Milgram focused on. The answer was very far—a conclusion consistent with that of subsequent Milgram-like studies.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
92
By
Comments (92)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    I'm so glad the dispatch allows its readers the comment and fact check unfortunately there's got to be a lot more of this

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Joe Delanis

    I'm sick and tired of this:

    Hannah Arendt and Milgram were wrong.

    Eichmann wasn't some bureaucrat "just following orders." He was a true believer in the Nazi cause. Every time somebody evokes Arendt's "banality of evil," they are trafficking in and perpetuating a historical falsehood.

    Incidentally, this is also true of another favorite topic among pop psychologists, the Kitty Genovese murder. It is *factually wrong* that "an apartment full of people heard her screams and did nothing*. Yet people who really ought to know better keep recounting the inaccurate version of events. The truth is, many residents of that apartment complex DID respond to Kitty's screams (albeit in different ways). It was the NYPD that screwed up, and when the police chief was talking to a NYT editor the LIE of the bystanders' indifference to her screams was born.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tyler

    There is a very effective solution, though. It's been incredibly successful in aviation, and subsequently has begun to be practiced more in medicine. It's called "crew resource management," and a key component of it is training both authority figures and their subordinates how to communicate with each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management

    It grew out of (primarily) the worst aviation disaster ever, which occurred at the Tenerife airport in the Canary Islands in the 70s. Two packed 747s collided on the runway. There was a litany of causes, but the primary issue was that the KLM pilot was an arrogant "god pilot" who refused to listen to other crewmembers who questioned whether they were in fact cleared for takeoff (they weren't, but he went ahead anyway and killed 600 people).

    Airlines have been trying for the past forty years to reduce the tendency of macho pilots to dismiss others, and they've actually been really effective. Unsurprisingly, this problem is also manifest in healthcare settings, with arrogant god-surgeons making asinine mistakes because they're too good for checklists, double-checking, and listening to nurses and assistants.

    Over time, it really is possible to change cultures. Police departments need to engage in similar processes, and either wash out the ex-high-school-bullies, train them up, or make their experience so miserable that they resign.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      As a regular watcher of "Mayday" I agree with all the above, and I will also note that this isn't just a problem with Western culture. One of the episodes involved a Korean airliner that crashed because of a mistake by the senior pilot that the copilot let go, even though it was very likely that he probably knew that what his captain was doing would lead to all their deaths.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tyler

        Oh, yeah, it's an ever bigger problem in the more hierarchical cultures. One of the saddest examples is Avianca Flight 52. The crew was, basically, intimidated by NY controllers and refused to speak up about how dire their situation was. They ran out of fuel and crashed practically within gliding distance of JFK. All they had to do was say "we have a fuel emergency," and they'd have been cleared to land immediately. JFK would have moved literally everyone out of their way. ATC will waive off Air Force 1 if you have an emergency.

        Even if they hadn't used the "magic word" (in this case "emergency") it wouldn't have mattered. "Hey assholes! We're literally about to run out of fuel and die. We're landing. Move everyone else out of the way" also would have worked swimmingly. ATC will declare an emergency on the crew's behalf based on what they're saying. But in that scenario, the crew was interpreting the controllers as the authority figures and just followed their instructions to their graves.

        Collapse
  4. Mathew A

    Chavin wasn't just regarded as an authority figure I'm pretty sure he was the training officer. He was in authority

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Viola Larson

    Thank you. A very much needed essay. We are all too easily pushed toward the wrong direction. Even if George -Floyd was full of drugs failure to help him in his distress and insistence on continuing the knee pressure is abhorrent. In a blog posting I wrote in 2016 I referred to a time in class when our professor asked us to participate in a test him and some other professors were involved in. In the test we were to choose between several actions one supposedly being good and the other bad. As we went further in the test the two options both became increasingly bad until I could no longer pick one. I looked around me hoping I would see some help or movement from those in the class including a nun who was a friend. They were all busy with their heads down. So finally I quit and took the paper to the teacher and told him I could not finish. He told me that was fine I had done what I was suppose to. Anyone interested the posting is here: https://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-allowing-himself-to-be.html?m=0 I wish this article was public so I could freely share it on Facebook. But thank you anyway.

    Collapse
  6. Tpmcinerny

    Milgram's "experiments" were Pysch-1001 hilarity by 1974. They certainly made "Ghostbusters" by 1984. There is no "Science" in Chauvin's actions. There are mountains of "Science" in Floyd's.

    Collapse
  7. Emma

    My question is, if those in power/authority (like those new police officers) were too scared to say something when a man was obviously slowly dying, what happens in a less dramatic scene, say at the office, if someone says something racists and no minorities are around to hear it? There is this idea that we expect minorities to "call it out" but at the same time, minorities are not at the seat of power in many leadership positions. So, is it just ignored? And how do we know it is occurring unless "the other" happens to overhear it? What concerns me is the lack of SPEAKING UP and at the same time, telling minorities it is up to them to help make that happen. If the leadership is all men and someone makes degrading comments about women, do the men stand up? Or do they smile uncomfortably and ignore it for fear of retaliation or upsetting the structure?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Well, the new police officers did TRY, to give them some credit. They spoke up, were shot down, and being 'green' understandably thought they were in the wrong because an authority figure, who had more knowledge and experience (Chauvin) would know better than they did. And technically, he DID. If it's fact that he was just following what he'd been taught in training, he wasn't in the wrong legally/technically. Morally....I'd argue that morally he was in the wrong. We're a long time past the "just following orders/training" excuse for moral outrages. He clearly ignored "I can't breathe." If he'd employed some empathy, or the other officers questioning and said something like "you know what, he's down, let's get him in the squad car/call an ambulance" and then Floyd died from the same thing? Changes things.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Meh, this is a poorly written article, and misses quite a bit of what Milgram's work was about.

    In the original Milgram study, the subjects were told this was a scientific research study, and all sorts of things were done to make it look official. The subsequent variations on the study examined how much "the official" appearance mattered (it did, somewhat). They also found the more personal it was, the less willing were the subjects to continue (i.e., if you had to hold the person's hand to get the shock, you were less willing to administer the shock. One of the best things to come of this were IRBs, where researchers have to get permission to do studies on people, to ensure their psychological well being is not being ignored.

    In interviewing participants afterwards, there was real confusion about how serious were the shocks (many believed they would not be allowed to kill/seriously injure the subjects in the study). By making it realistic, people thought the other person could not be harmed.

    I think Milgram's work is best exemplified today by the mantra "listen to the science", as people discuss the pandemic. Milgram would tell people to question the authorities. But look at how critics respond. Watch how politicians claim the experts support their position.

    And yes, I've had both vaccine shots and still wear a mask when I am in public buildings.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Man-Eating Cow

    From Wikipedia: (Yeah, I know.)

    "In 2012 Australian psychologist Gina Perry investigated Milgram's data and writings and concluded that Milgram had manipulated the results, and that there was a "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." She wrote that "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".[23][24] She described her findings as "an unexpected outcome" that "leaves social psychology in a difficult situation."[25]"

    TL;DR: You're giving Milgram too much credit.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      I've always thought the Milgram experiment claimed wayyyyy too much, data manipulation aside. I'd have suspected the whole thing was some sort of setup and acted differently as a result. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

      Nonetheless, I think the underlying dynamic it describes is undoubtedly true. The only question is *how* true, i.e. to what extent?

      I still think the point the author makes works. There's no doubt in my mind that those two, extremely green, officers were afraid to say anything to their superior.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        Yes, my point wasn't to say Milgram didn't prove anything. I just caution against extrapolating too much from the experiment to the general population.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Man-Eating Cow

        That I agree with. It was a classic situation of deferring to someone you have strong reason to believe had real expertise. I can't blame them for thinking Chauvin knew something about the law, the suspect, or police techniques they didn't. For example, since the suspect had earlier resisted lawful arrest, perhaps they assumed that Chauvin knew the suspect was faking it all as a way to continue resisting arrest.

        So I'd probably be reluctant to convict those two of any crime, barring some other evidence I'm not aware of. Chauvin, with many years on the force, is another matter. Yes, I'd listen to his defense if I was a juror, and to the coroner's report and to what other witnesses had to say. But it's hard to imagine a justification to continuing to kneel on the man's neck after he had visibly stopped breathing.

        Does that last apply to the two green officers? Should they have realized something was terribly wrong at that point? It's certainly tempting to think so. If I had to put a bright line between "defer to the expert when you are lacking experience and information" and "this is obviously not right, screw the expert" it would be right there.

        Collapse
        1. Tpmcinerny

          By now the "dust" has settled." Time to let Trial work its' work....and be aware of the backwash----from wherever.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          CVS

          Yep, agree with all of that. At least based on what I know now.

          " But it's hard to imagine a justification to continuing to kneel on the man's neck after he had visibly stopped breathing."

          Yeah, that's the thing. I can see potentially letting the other two off. Letting Chauvin off is another story. I can't imagine a justification I'd buy based on what I know.

          Most cops are good people, etc. but I think everyone has met one of those cops, at one point or another, that just seems to get off on the power. I have no way of knowing if he's one of those types. But it strikes me as possible.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Man-Eating Cow

            "I have no way of knowing if he's one of those types."

            There is, as they say, evidence.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      I've seen that. So yeah, I take caution on using it too much. I think the key insight of his work is that the more a person develops "expert power", the more people will listen and obey, if they feel they are not well informed on the topic.

      Collapse
      1. Emma

        Yes, like that nazi test in the 60's by that teacher. Students quickly became part of "the team" and the rest is history

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Man-Eating Cow

        I think it's entirely rational to defer to experts where my own knowledge is scanty.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

          It is...to a degree.
          When i was a camp counselor, I used to do a riff on this. I'd give the cabin a story, and have them write down symbols of words used in the story. I'd then tell them what the scientists said the symbols meant. I'd do that on Thursday, but during the week, pay attention to small talk, and pick up tidbits to weave into "what the symbols meant". But I would also pick one shy kid, and shows his symbols meant he was near- psychopathic, almost to the point of calling the director for protection.

          And because they knew I was a college professor, they trusted me. SUCKERS! And the point was to tell them that there are con artists out there who will try to convince you to do stuff not in your best interests. And we talked about what those could be.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Man-Eating Cow

            Fair enough. It remains the case that the majority of those who are conned were conned because they _wanted_ to believe.

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Khal Spencer

    Another example of a catastrophe caused by a poor workplace culture of not questioning "authority". We read about this in a safety class I took in order to work in a high hazard nuclear facility.

    The crashes of Air Ontario flight 1363 and USAir flight 405

    https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-crashes-of-air-ontario-flight-1363-and-usair-flight-405-357ceee1867

    snippet

    "...In addition, there were numerous flight attendants, pilots riding as passengers, and even regular passengers who saw the ice on the wings but didn’t tell Captain Morwood and First Officer Mills. Most believed that the plane would be de-iced and only realized that it would not shortly before takeoff. Furthermore, the flight attendants knew that Air Ontario usually treated their input as meaningless. And the off duty pilots considered it impolite to point out safety concerns to other pilots, who are assumed to know what they’re doing. It was evident that a corporate airline culture which did not value the input of anyone other than the pilots flying had played a role in the crash...."

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Suddenly the cartoon of the angry passenger demanding a vote on "why can't I fly the plane" doesn't seem quite as ludicrous. Anyway, that cartoon is often used to mock contrarians that challenge the experts. But I don't think the only two alternatives are an openly anti-science contrarianism and blindly following the experts.

      Unfortunately, some of the recent framing about the CDC "allowing" vaccinated people to hug people or whatever, implies that the CDC experts are authority figures who Must Be Obeyed. But that's just not their role, IMO. There's no CDC Police that will arrest you if you host a BBQ party where everyone throws their masks on the fire and stays 6 inches instead of 6 feet apart. Actual elected authority figures with power have tended to follow these guidelines, but they have also been more or less restrictive in their actions.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Khal Spencer

        Thing is, these weren't contrarians but off duty pilots as well as flight attendants, all unwilling to challenge authority either out of its futility, being inhibited from doing so, or out of some sort of politeness. I read some of the comments below that cast doubt on the Milgram experiment but the cases of people being afraid or intimidated into not speaking out, or thinking something is "someone else's issue" are not rare.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          I am never afraid of demanding to know who's in charge and telling them what I think. And for that I'm called a Karen.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Aylene Wright

          I actually agree with all of this, and certainly the question of when to defer to experts and when to question them is a complicated one. I understand that crashes like the above have led to the airline industry adopting "Crew Resource Management" strategies that try to empower crew members to speak up instead of automatically deferring to the captain.

          Collapse
Load More