Explanations of Milgram's findings have traditionally focused on a priori qualities of the situation and/or the actors, which are presumed to operate more or less simultaneously to produce obedience or defiance. Such a perspective largely overlooks the unfolding and evolving nature of both obedience and defiance. This article develops a contrasting, sequential model. A specific hypothesis is advanced: The sooner in the course of the experiment a subject begins to show notable resistance, the more likely he will be to end up defiant. Reanalysis of data collected by Milgram for his “Bridgeport” condition supports this hypothesis. The effects of early resistance are discussed in terms of two processes: (a) An interpersonal process that works to jam the authority's prods and break the momentum he imparts to the interaction; and (b) a psychological process that works to erode the subject's rationalization for continuing and spurs him to search for justification for stopping.
[1]
John M. Darley,et al.
Social Organization for the Production of Evil
,
1992
.
[2]
S. Milgram,et al.
Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance toward authoritative command.
,
1966
.
[3]
K. Haas.
Obedience: Submission to Destructive Orders as Related to Hostility
,
1966,
Psychological reports.
[4]
Thomas Blass,et al.
Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.
,
1991
.
[5]
S Milgram,et al.
Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority
,
1965
.