Más allá de la obediencia: reanálisis de la investigación de Milgram

Jesús M. Canto Ortiz; José L. Álvaro

doi:10.24310/espsiescpsi.v8i1.13222

Autores/as

Jesús M. Canto Ortiz Departamento de Psicología Social, Antropología Social, Trabajo Social y Servicios Sociales de la Universidad de Málaga España
José L. Álvaro Departamento de Psicología Social de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid España

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24310/espsiescpsi.v8i1.13222

Palabras clave:

Autoridad, Holocausto, Milgram, Obediencia

Resumen

Los experimentos de Milgram sobre la obediencia a la autoridad son considerados una de las investigaciones más importantes de la psicología social. Su impacto ha abarcado tanto a la psicología social como a otras ramas de la psicología, incluidas otras ciencias sociales. En este trabajo se analiza la influencia recíproca de la investigación de Milgram y el concepto de la banalidad del mal de Arendt. Se critica el modelo teórico propuesto por Milgram y el concepto de la banalidad del mal de Arendt. No hay ninguna demostración empírica de la existencia del estado agén-tico y de la relación entre éste y los niveles de obediencia obtenidos en los experimentos de Milgram. Además, obras recientes sobre el Holocausto no confirman que las acciones criminales de los líderes nazis se debieran a actos de obediencia debida. Son necesarios modelos teóricos como el que se basa en la perspectiva de la identidad social para explicar los datos obtenidos en el experimento de Milgram.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Métricas

Cargando métricas ...

Citas

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. y Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Nueva York: Harper.

Álvaro, J. L. y Garrido, A. (2003). Psicología social. Perspectivas psicológicas y sociológicas. Madrid: McGraw Hill.

Arendt, H. (1951). Origins of totalitarianism. San Diego, CA: Harvest.

Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. Nueva York: Penguin.

Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on the ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of Obedience”. American Psychologist, 19, 421-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040128

Benjamin, L. y Simpson, J. (2009). The power of situation. The impact of Milgram´s obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 12-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014077

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behaviour in the Milgram obedience experiment: The rol of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398

Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955-978. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x

Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. Nueva York: Basic Books.

Brannigan, A. (2004). The rise and the fall of social psycho-logy: The use and misuse of the experimental method. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction.

Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram. Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

Canto, J. M. (1994). Psicología social e influencia. Málaga: Aljibe.

Cesarani, D. (2004). Eichmann: His life and crimes. Londres: Heinemann.

Darley, J. (1992). Social organization for the production of evil. Psychology Inquiry, 3, 199-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0302_28

Gibson, S. (2014). Discourse, defiance, and rationality: “Knowledge work” in the “obedience” experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 424-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12069

Haney, C., Banks, C. y Zimbardo, P. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. En E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (pp. 52-67). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Haslam, S. y Reicher, S. (2011). Beyond conformity. Revisiting classic studies and exploring the dynamics of resistance. En J. Jetten y M. Hornsey. Rebels in groups: dissent, deviance, difference and defiance (pp. 324-344). Londres: Wiley-Blackwell.

Haslam, S., Reicher, S. y Birney, M. (2014). Nothing by mere authority: evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to science. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 473-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12072

Le Bon, G. (1895). Psychologie des foules. Félix Alcan: París.

Lunt, P. (2009). Stanley Milgram. Understanding obedience and its implications. Nueva York: Palgrave MacMillan

Masserman, J. (1968). Debatable conclusions. Internatio-nal Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 261-281.

Meeus, W. y Raaijmakers, Q. (1986). Administrative obe-dience: Carrying out orders to use psychological-administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 311-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420160402

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

Milgram, S. (1965a). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Humans Relations, 18, 57-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800105

Milgram, S. (1965b). Liberating effects of group pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 127-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021650

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An experimental view. Nueva York: Harper and Row.

Miller, A. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. Nueva York: Praeger.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. Nueva York: Wiley.

Moscovici, S. (1981). Psicología de las minorías activas. Madrid: Morata.

Orne, M. y Holland, C. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282-293.

Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s obedience experiments: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 301-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00080.x

Parker, I. (2000). Obedience. Granta, 71, 99-124.

Reicher, S. y Haslam, S. (2006). Rethinking the psycho-logy of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466605X48998

Reicher, S. y Haslam, S. (2011). After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram ‘obedience’ studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 163-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02015.x

Reicher, S. y Haslam, S. (2012). Obedience. Revisiting Milgram’s shock experiments. En J. Smith y S. Haslam (Eds.), Social Psychology. Revisiting the classic studies (pp. 106-125). Londres: Sage.

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. y Miller, A. G. (2014). What makes a person a pertetrator? The intellectual, moral, and methodological arguments for revisiting Milgram´s research on the influence of authority. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 393-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12067

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. y Rath, R. (2008). Making a virtue of evil: A five-step social identity model of the development of collective hate. Social and Personality Psychology Com-pass, 2/3, 1313-1344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00113.x

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. y Smith, J. (2012). Working towards the experimenter: reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspectives on Psychology Science, 7, 315-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612448482

Rochat, F. y Midigliani, A. (1995). The ordinary quality of resistance: From Milgram’s laboratory to the village of Le Chambon. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 195-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01341.x

Rochat, F. y Blass, T. (2014). Milgram´s unpublished obedience variation and its historical relevance. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 456-472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12071

Ross, L. D. (1988). Situationist perspectives on the obedience experiments. Contemporary Psychology, 33, 101-104.

Russell, N. J. (2011). Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 140-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466610X492205

Russell, N. J. (2014). The emergence of Milgram`s bureaucratic machine. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 409-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12068

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Nueva York: Harper & Row.

Sherif, M. y Sherif, C. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. Nueva York: Harper & Row.

Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., Pistrang, N. y Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS ONE, 1: e39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/jour-nal.pone.0000039

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. y Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wicker, A. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship between verbal and overt behavioural response in attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x