A truth that does not always speak its name: How Hollander and Turowetz's findings confirm and extend the engaged followership analysis of harm-doing in the Milgram paradigm.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Author(s): Haslam SA;Haslam SA; Reicher SD; Reicher SD
  • Source:
    The British journal of social psychology [Br J Soc Psychol] 2018 Apr; Vol. 57 (2), pp. 292-300. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Feb 21.
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Comment
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 8105534 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2044-8309 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01446665 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Br J Soc Psychol Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: <2012-> : Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell
      Original Publication: Letchworth Herts : British Psychological Society
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      Hollander and Turowetz (2017, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 56, 655-674) present important data from post-experimental interviews with participants in Milgram's 'obedience' research. In these, participants responded to various questions about their perceptions of the study and their behaviour by indicating that they trusted the Experimenter not to let them inflict serious harm. Relatively few participants indicated that they acted as they did because they were committed to the Experimenter or to science. We argue, however, that there are two key reasons why this evidence is not inconsistent with claims that harm-doing is a product of engaged followership. The first is that (in contrast to the data obtained from later post-experimental surveys) the conversational logic of the interviews does not topicalize a discussion or valorization of science, but instead requires participants to defend themselves against an accusation of improper behaviour. The second is that participants' accounts of their behaviour nevertheless revolved around expressions of trust in the Experimenter which can themselves be seen as manifestations of shared identity and engaged followership. Nevertheless, we argue that H&T's analysis points to significant ways in which the engaged followership account and its broader implications for understanding perpetrator behaviour can be embellished.
      (© 2018 The British Psychological Society.)
    • Comments:
      Comment on: Br J Soc Psychol. 2017 Dec;56(4):655-674. (PMID: 28653413)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Milgram; authority; conformity; followership; obedience; social identification
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20180223 Date Completed: 20190314 Latest Revision: 20190314
    • Publication Date:
      20240105
    • Accession Number:
      10.1111/bjso.12247
    • Accession Number:
      29468707