Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive o...

This article describes a procedure for the study of destructive obedience in the laboratory. It coruists of ordering a naive S to administer increasingly more w e r e punishment to a victim in the context of a learning experiment. Punishment is .administered by means of a shock generator with 30 graded switches ranging from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The victim is a confederate of th...

The present paper outlines a perspective on Milgram's obedience experiments informed by rhetorical psychology. This perspective is demonstrated through a qualitative analysis of audio recordings and transcripts from two of Milgram's experimental conditions: 'voice-feedback' and 'women as subjects'. Analysis draws attention to the way in which participants could draw the experimenter into a proc...

Intuitively, obedience – following the order that a human gives – seems like a good property for a robot to have. But, we humans are not perfect and we may give orders that are not best aligned to our preferences. We show that when a human is not perfectly rational then a robot that tries to infer and act according to the human’s underlying preferences can always perform better than a robot tha...

In "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?" Jerry M. Burger reported a high base rate of obedience, comparable to that observed by Stanley Milgram (1974). Another condition, involving a defiant confederate, failed to significantly reduce obedience. This commentary discusses the primary contributions of Burger's study in terms of (a) its novel methodological variation on Milgram's o...