The prescriptive power of the television host. A transposition of Milgram's obedience paradigm to the context of TV game show

(1)

HAL Id: sic_00765320

https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00765320

Submitted on 14 Dec 2012

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access

archive for the deposit and dissemination of

sci-entific research documents, whether they are

pub-lished or not. The documents may come from

teaching and research institutions in France or

abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents

scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,

émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de

recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires

publics ou privés.

context of TV game show

Jean-Léon Beauvois, Didier Courbet, Dominique Oberlé

To cite this version:

Jean-Léon Beauvois, Didier Courbet, Dominique Oberlé. The prescriptive power of the television

host. A transposition of Milgram’s obedience paradigm to the context of TV game show. European

Review of Applied Psychology / Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, Elsevier, 2012, 62 (3),

pp.111-119. �sic_00765320�

(2)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research

and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

(3)

Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119

Disponible

en

ligne

sur

www.sciencedirect.com

Original

article

The

prescriptive

power

of

the

television

host.

A

transposition

of

Milgram’s

obedience

paradigm

to

the

context

of

TV

game

show

夽

Le

pouvoir

prescriptif

de

l’animateur

de

télévision.

Une

transposition

du

paradigme

de

l’obéissance

de

Milgram

dans

le

contexte

d’un

jeu

télévisé

J.-L.

Beauvois

a,∗

_,

_D.

_Courbet

b

_,

_D.

_Oberlé

c

a_223,_route_de_Marseille,₈₃₆₇₀_Barjols,_France

b_IRSIC,_IUT_{d’Aix-en-Provence,}_{Aix-Marseille}_University,_413,_avenue_{Gaston-Berger,}₁₃₆₂₅_{Aix-en-Provence,}_France

c_University_of_Paris-Ouest_Nanterre_La_Defense,_Department_of_Psychology,_200,_avenue_de_la_République,₉₂₇₀₀_Nanterre,_France

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received24January2011

Receivedinrevisedform3February2012 Accepted7February2012 Keywords: Televisionviolence Realitytelevision Authority Milgram Obedience

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Introduction.–Today’sfascinationwithtelevisionmakesuswonderwhetheritmightnotrepresentan authoritycapableofleadingpeopleinatelevisionstudiotoinflictcruelactsonothers,eventhoughthey condemnthoseacts.

Objective.–Theexperimentreportedhereallowsustoanswerthisquestionintheaffirmative.Therefore, wetransposedMilgram’sfamousexperimentalobedienceparadigmtothecontextofa“real”TVgame show,inthestudioofalargetelevisionproductioncompany,withaliveaudienceandnoprizes. Method.–Wesetupseveralexperimentalconditionsdesignedtotellusif,insuchcontexts,obedience wasthedominantresponse,asitisintheoften-replicatedclassicsituation.Wealsowishedtoknowif theintroductionofvariationswouldreduceobedience.

Results.–Theresultsshowthatobediencetothehostisthedominantresponse,asitisinMilgram’sclassic situation.However,variationsthatareassumedtoreducethisobediencedonotinfactdemonstratethe expectedeffects.Anadditionalexperimentalconditionappearstodemonstratethatadeterminingfactor ofobedienceisthephysicalproximityofthehostincarnatingthetelevisualpower.

Conclusion.–Weofferaconclusionaddressingthesocietalaspectsofobedience.

Motsclés: Violencetélévisuelle Télé-réalité Autorité Milgram Obéissance

r

é

s

u

m

é

Introduction.–Vulafascinationqu’exerceaujourd’huilatélévision,onsedemandesiellenereprésente pasuneautoritésusceptibledeconduirelesgensàcommettre,surunplateaudetélévision,desactes cruelsàl’égardd’autrui,actesquepourtantilsréprouvent.

Objectifs.–Laprésenteexpériencenouspermetderépondreaffirmativementàcettequestion.Pourle démontrer,nousavonstransposélecélèbreparadigmed’obéissancedeMilgramdanslecontexted’un jeutélévisé,filmédanslestudiod’uneentreprisedeproductiond’émissionstélévisées,impliquantun publicmaispasdegains.

Méthode.–Nousavonsréaliséplusieursconditionsexpérimentalesdestinéesàfaireapparaîtresi,dans untelcontexte,l’obéissancerestait,commedanslasituationclassiquesouventreproduite,laréponse dominante.Noussouhaitionsaussisavoirsil’introductiondevariantespermettraitd’obtenir,une réduc-tiondel’obéissance.

Résultats.–Lesrésultatsmontrentquel’obéissanceàl’animatriceest,commedanslasituationstandard deMilgram,laréponsedominanteetquedesvariantessupposéesaprioriréduirecetteobéissancenela réduisentpas.Uneconditionexpérimentaleadditionnellesembleindiquerqu’unfacteurdéterminantde l’obéissanceestlaproximitéphysiquedel’animatricereprésentantlepouvoirtélévisuel.

Conclusion.–Onconclutenévoquantlesaspectssociétauxdel’obéissance.

©2012PubliéparElsevierMassonSAS. 夽 WewouldliketothankOlivierCodou,JulienIntartaglia,AmandineTonelliandDavidVaidisfortheirparticipationintheexperiment’sexecutionandparticularlyfor creatingthedebriefings.We’dliketothankFranceTélévision,ChristopheNickandtheYami2teamforallowingustoperformthisexperiment.

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:jlbeauvois@wanadoo.fr(J.-L.Beauvois),didier.courbet@univ-amu.fr(D.Courbet),oberle.dominique@wanadoo.fr(D.Oberlé).

(4)

Author's personal copy

112 J.-L.Beauvoisetal./Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119

Though theeffectsoftelevisiononviewersarecomplexand sometimes difficult to demonstrate experimentally (McGuire, 1986),thereisalargebodyofresearchindicatingthesignificant impactoftelevisiononpeople’sbehavior(Berkowitz,1986;Bryant andOliver,2009).Nevertheless,toourknowledge,therearefew studieswhich demonstratethe authority orprescriptivepower heldbythetelevisionworld anditsrepresentatives.Yet,is not televisual authority at work and particularly striking in game showsduringwhich,basedonasingleordergivenbythegame host,contestantsperform violentactsagainst othersor against themselves?Wewantedtofindoutwhether,atthepresenttime, television is able to endow certain agents—such as TV show hosts—with a degree of authority that gives them the power tomake game-showcontestantscommitdangerousactsor acts they condemn. To demonstrate this, we transposed Milgram’s obedience-to-authorityparadigm(Milgram,1963,1974)toaTV gameshow setting where a female host(an accomplice ofthe experimenters)askedpeopletodeliver(fake) electricshocksto otherpersons1_. _Our _study,_then, _is _not _just _another_replication

ofMilgram’slaboratoryexperimentstobeaddedtothelist,the differencebeingthatintheMilgramreplications,itwasthestatus of scientific researcher that granted legitimacy tothe agent of authority(Blass,2009).Inthetransposedversionreportedhere, althoughwestayedascloseaspossibletoMilgram’s obedience paradigm and electric-shock procedure, our experiment takes placeinatotallydifferentsocialcontext,onewheretheauthority derivesitslegitimacy fromanotherentity, thetelevisionshow. Fromthesubjects’standpoint,theexperimentwasnotascientific studybutagameshowtakingplaceinfrontofaliveaudience.Our goalwastoseewhetherandwhenpeoplewouldcomplywith,or resist,thetelevisualauthorityincarnatedbythehostofthegame.

1. Theoreticalbackground

In 1963—in one of the most famous studies in psycho-logy—Stanley Milgram(1963)showedthat ordinary Americans participatinginanexperimentonhowpunishmentaffects mem-ory agreedto satisfy the request of a researcher—an agent of authoritywhourgedthemtocontinuewiththeexperiment—by actingasa“professor”and deliveringdangerouselectric shocks (thatwereinfactfictitious)toa“student”.Nearly50yearslater, thisresearchcontinuestogeneratenewanalyses,commentaries andreinterpretations(DeVos,2010;ReicherandHaslam,2011; Russell, 2011). Although certain situations did indeed produce disobedience (inparticular, the absenceof the researcher),the moststrikingthing foreveryone—especially Milgram—wasthe obediencerate obtained, already in 1963. In that study, 62.5% ofthe“professors”went allthewayupto450volts.Giventhe spectacularnatureofboththesituationandthefindings,Milgram’s experimentwasreproducedonmorethan3000persons,recruited from12differentcountries,andeverytime,thesameresultswere obtained(Blass,1999).Meanwhile,manyobjectionswereraised condemningtheexperiment(seeMiller,1986).ThisiswhyBurger (2009)recentlysuggested that duringreplications of Milgram’s experiment,subjectsshouldnotbeaskedtosendshocksabove150 volts.Indeed,asPacker(2008)pointsout,thisvoltagerepresents acriticaljunctureinthecourseoftheexperiment.Inaddition,the rateofdisobediencecannotbeexplainedbythestudent’sgrowing criesandsupposedsuffering,whichfollowthevoltageincrease.

1_This_research_was_approved_by_the_French_Society_of_Information_Science_and CommunicationScience(SFSIC).Itwasconsideredthattheresearchmettheethical standardsofresearchonhumans,includinginformedconsent.Formoreinformation ondevelopmentsconcerningtheethicalaspectsofthisexperiment,seeOberléetal. (2011).

Thevariousreproductionsalwaystookplaceinthesamecontext (theonedesignedbyMilgram):ascientificstudyconductedina laboratory,withtheagentofauthoritydrawinghislegitimacyfrom hisstatusasaresearchscientist.Thereisoneexception,however. In theirfascinatingstudy,Meeus andRaaijmakers (1986,1987) transposedtheMilgramparadigmtoanorganizationalsettingin whichthesufferinginflictedbytheexperimentalsubjectswasnot physicalbutpsychological.Subjectshadtoobeyanallegedheadof personnel’sordertodisturbanapplicantduringajobinterview.The obediencerateinthisorganizationalsettingalmosthitthe100% mark.However,althoughtheirreproductionretainedMilgram’s basicframework,itdidnotre-usetheelectric-shockprocedure.In thetranspositionwepresenthere,westayedascloseaspossibleto Milgram’sobedienceparadigmandelectric-shockprocedure,but weinserteditintelevisionshowsetting,similartothewayHaslam andReicher(2006)transposedZimbardo’sStanfordprison experi-menttotheBBC.Todoso,andcontrarytoBurger’s(2009) sugges-tion,weperformedanidenticalreplicationofthecompleteelectric shockprocedure(upto460volts).Burger’smainreasonforlimiting thevoltagestrengthisanethicalone:surpassing150voltsimposes toomuchsufferingandthustoomuchguiltonobedientsubjects. Webelievethatthisethicalstandardismorecomfortablethan rig-orous.Itistheverywillingnesstoharmafellowhumanbeingwhich isimmoral,regardlessofthedegreeofsufferingbeinginflicted. Moreover,forcredibilityreasons,transposingtheexperimentinto atelevisedgamesettingrequirestheuseofviolenceequivalentto thatfrequentlyimplementedinsomeofthesegames.

Wethuswonderedwhatwouldhappeniftheagentofauthority drewherlegitimacysolelyfromher associationwiththeworld oftelevision.Giventheimportanceoftelevisioninoursociety,it seemsbothlegitimateandnecessarytoraisethisquestion.

Our assumption is that the authority is incarnated by the gamehost.Whilethepersuasiveinfluenceofhostsisnowwidely recognized(NabiandHendriks,2003),itisthehost’sprescriptive powerwhichwewouldliketomakeapparentandwhosepotential limitswewouldliketotest.Thispowerisrelatedtothestatutory positionoccupiedinanorganizationalstructureandresultsfrom a delegation of power (Coenen-Huther, 2005).It thus does not depend onthedelegated person’slevel of prestige.In fact, the prestigeofthehosts,whichdependsontheirrelativepopularity, primarilyrelatestotheirleadershipcapacities.Moreover,in Mil-gram’scase,whenthenotionofprestigeismentioned,itrelatesto scienceasawhole,andnottothescientistgivingorders.Similarly, wecanconsiderthehosttobetherecipientofapowerdelegation fromthetelevisualauthority.

Thus,basedonourassumptionthatauthorityisincarnatedby thegamehost,wesetupthreeexperimentalconditionsdesignedto telluswhenpeoplewouldobeythetelevisualauthorityandwhen theywouldresistit.Wewantedtoknowwhether,inthiscontext, obediencewouldremainthedominantresponse,asinthe clas-sicsituation;andwhetherintroducingavariationwhichreduces obedienceintheclassicsituation(socialsupportfordisobedience) wouldhavethesameeffectinatelevisualcontext.Finally,aspecific conditionwasintroducedforthetelevisualcontext(seesection2.3 [Experimentalsubjectsandexperimentalconditions]).

2. Method

2.1. Experimentalsetting

Theexperimenttookplaceina televisionstudio.Anoriginal gameshowwassetuponstagewiththehelpoftechnicaldevices (cameras, lighting, giantscreen, control room,etc.)and human resources(81persons)fromseveralcompaniesspecializinginthe productionofgameshowsonFrenchTV.Assuchshows,therewas

(5)

J.-L.Beauvoisetal./Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119 113

aliveaudienceintheseatingareasaroundthestage.Theaudience consistedofabout100personsofallageswhohadanswereda shortadontheInternetpostedbyacompanyspecializinginthe recruitmentofgame-showaudiences.Inordertoaccountforany obedienceobserved,wehadtoeliminateallcausesotherthanpure obediencetoauthority,suchasthedesiretowinmoney.Sothatno rewardswouldbeatstake,wesetupapilotshowinwhichthe par-ticipantswerefilmedin“realconditions”buttoldthatthepurpose wastotestthegameandimproveitifnecessary.

2.2. Experimentalrequirements

Ourtranspositiontothetelevisionsettinghad tosatisfytwo requirements.The firstconsistedofstaying ascloseas possible toMilgram’s experimentalsituation while putting the subjects in a credible televisual context. Following a discussion with television producers and filmmakers, we decided that a game showreproducingMilgram’ssituation(anaivequestionerisasked byaTVshowhosttodeliverelectricshocks)wouldmeet these requirementsifwecouldeliminatethemotivationtoparticipate inordertowinmoney.Ournextstepwastotestthecredibility ofthegame showontheproducersand TVchannel (France2) thathad agreedtofundtheexperimentandincorporateitinto a documentaryon therisks of certain realityTV games. To be credible,theexperimenthadtobeconductedinarealtelevision studio,andrealtelevisionstaffhadtobetrainedtoworkintheir usualway,whileneverthelessmeetingtherigorousrequirements ofascientificexperiment.Thismeantnotchangingthescenario onceitwasadopted,replyingtoquestionsusingtheexactmaterial foundin the scenario,and so on.The scenario was pre-tested onafewtechniciansfromthefilmingstaffandthenonthefirst questionerineachexperimentalcondition.Itworkedperfectly.

Thesecond requirement wastomake surethat therapport betweentheagentof authorityandtheagentsubjectedtothat authoritywasveryclosetotheonecreatedbyMilgram.Toverify this,we establisheda listof15 criteriafor analyzingsituations of power involving an asymmetrical relationship between two persons,onewho makesbehavioralprescriptionsand theother whoissupposedtoobey(Table1).Thetwosituations(ourgame showand Milgram’sscientificlaboratory)turnedouttobevery closeforall15criteria2_.

Theseprecautionsallowedustoconcludethat thetelevisual framingofMilgram’sparadigminnowaymodifiedthebasics,the typeof relationshipbetweenthepersongiving theinstructions and the person receiving them, and thus that in power-based and situation-based terms, the host-questioner rapport in the presentstudywasveryclosetotheresearcher-professorsituation inMilgram’sstudy.

2.3. Experimentalsubjectsandexperimentalconditions

Seventy-sixordinary peoplewereselectedfrom a consumer database by an independent company that conducts opinion pollsandmarket studies.Theyeachreceived40euros.Subjects whohadalreadyparticipatedinagameshowwerenoteligible,

2 _The_great_similarity_between_the_two_situations₍₁₅_of₁₅_common_traits)_is notatrivialityduetoaneventualbiasdrivenbyouranalysisgrid(e.g.lackof sensitivity).Todemonstratethis,wementionedtwootherpowerrelationshipsin

Table1:theForeman/WorkerrelationshipandtheSocialWorker/Socially Disad-vantagedPersonrelationship.Itappearsthattheresearcher/teacherrelationship andthehost/questionerrelationshipshareonlysixtraits(outof15)withthe Fore-man/Workerrelationshipandseventraits(outof15)withtheSocialWorker/Socially DisadvantagedPersonrelationship.Itisindeedbecausetheyareverysimilarinthe areaofpossiblepowerrelationshipsthattherelationshipsimplementedin Mil-gram’sandourexperimentssharethesametraits.

norwerepersonswho hadhealthproblemsorweretakingany kindof medication.The experimentalpopulationwasfromthe Parisian area. The characteristics of the sample are given in Tables2and3.Thetelevisualcontextoftheexperiment(renting astudio,hiringtechnicians,thehost’sschedule,etc.)restrictedus toapredeterminednumberofdaysfortheexperiment,andthus a predeterminednumber of subjectswere askedto participate (80).Foursubjectshadtobeeliminatedbecausetheywerealready familiarwithMilgram’sresearch.

Theexperimentalsubjectswereassignedtooneofthefollowing conditions3_.

2.3.1. Standardcondition(n=32)

This condition was similar to Milgram’s “voice-feedback” condition (Milgram, 1974, Experiment 2). A “questioner” (the experimental subject)asked27 questions to a “contestant”(an accompliceoftheexperimenter)whocouldbeheardbutnotseen. Everytimethecontestantgaveanincorrectanswer(accordingto apredeterminedscheduleof24incorrectanswersoutof27),the questionerwastopenalizehimbydeliveringan(alleged)electric shock.Theshocksrangedbetween20and460volts,andwereto beincreasedby20voltswitheachnewmistake.Thegamehost hadfiveprodsatherdisposalforencouragingreluctantsubjectsto continue:fourweresimilartotheonesusedbyMilgram,andthe fifthwasspecifictotheTV-showsetting(askingtheaudienceto intervene).

2.3.2. Social-supportcondition(n=19)

Thisconditionwasthesameasthestandardcondition,except thatwhenthevoltagereached120,theproductionassistant(an accomplice) rushed out on stage and asked that the game be stoppedbecauseitwastooimmoral.Theassistantwasbrushed asidebythehost,whowentonwiththegame.

2.3.3. TV-broadcastcondition(n=18)

Thisconditionwasthesameasthestandardcondition,except thatuponarrival,thequestionerandallegedcontestantweretold thattheTVstationwouldbroadcastthepilotshow.Theplayers wouldbeonTVbutwouldstillnotwinanymoney.

Immediateobservationoftheset,evenbeforestatisticaldata analysis,showedthatthesocialsupportcondition,whichwas sup-posedtoproducedisobedience,wasnotproducingtheexpected effect.Thisobservationledustointroduceanewcondition,not includedintheoriginaldesign,whichwetestedontheremaining subjects.

2.3.4. Host-withdrawalcondition(n=7)

This condition was similarto Milgram’s conditionin which the researcher leaves theexperiment (“experimenter absence”, Milgram,1974,Experiment7).Uponreaching80volts,thehost explainedthatfromnowon,theplayerswouldcontinueontheir own.Thenthehostwentoffstageanddidnotcomebackuntilthe gamewasover.

Allfourconditionswillbetakenintoaccountinthediscussions whichfollow,thoughthesmallnumberofsubjectsinthefourth conditionwarrantssomecaution.

2.4. Procedure

An alleged producer received each participant along with another person who was in fact a male accomplice of the experimenter.Theproducertoldthemthattheywouldbefilmed

3_Informed_consent_was_obtained_from_the_subjects_after_they_were_told_that_the gameinvolveddeliveringelectricshocks.

(6)

Author's personal copy

114 J.-L.Beauvoisetal./Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119 Table1

ComparisonofthepowerstructureinMilgram’sexperimentandintheTVgameshow,accordingtothe15criteriaforanalyzingsituationsofpower. Comparaisondelastructuredupouvoirdansl’expériencedeMilgrametdanslejeuTV,selon15critèresd’analysedessituationsdepouvoir.

Criterionforanalyzingsituationsofpower Milgram’s experiment

TVgameshow Conclusionof two-situation comparison Foreman/worker Social worker/socially disadvantaged person 1.Insertioninadependencestructure:there

existsaformalstructurewhereAandB occupyasymmetricalpositions

No No Samesituation Yes Yes

2.Prescriptionofobligations(“Do!”):Ais authorizedtomakeBdosomethingthatB wouldnotwillinglydootherwise

Yes Yes Samesituation Yes Yes

3.Prescriptionofprohibitions(“Donot!”):Ais authorizedtopreventBfromdoing somethingthatBwouldliketodo

4.FormalevaluationofBbyA:theevaluation musthaveotherconsequencesonthe evaluatedpersonthaninterpersonalones (e.g.someotherpersonwhowillbe informedoftheevaluationwill“havethe right”tomakedecisionsaboutB)

5.Thereexistpossibilitiesforpositive reinforcementthatAcanusetoB’sbenefit

6.Thereexistpossibilitiesfornegative reinforcementthatAcanusetoB’sdetriment

7.Operatoryinterdependence:whatBdoes dependsonwhatAdoes,butalso,whatA doesdependsonwhatBdoes

8.Existenceofrelativelywell-acknowledged valuesassumedtojustifythesituationof dependence:thesevaluesmustbegeneral enoughtobetransitivewithrespectsome other,even-more-generalvalue

Yes,science Yes,thegameshow Samesituation Yes Yes

9.Extentofdependence:A’sauthoritycanbe broughttobeartoaffectB’sbehaviorsor thoughtselsewherethaninthe interdependencesituationdefinedforthe B-on-Adependencesituation(e.g.for controllingB’sprivatelife,dresshabits, language)

No No Samesituation No Yes

10.Specificmaterialorpsychologicalbenefits oftheinteractionsituationcommontoboth persons:thesebenefitsmustbeshared, known,andnameable(morethanthemere interestordesiretoparticipate)

No No Samesituation Yes No

11.Specificmaterialorpsychologicalcostsof theinteractionsituationcommontoboth persons

No No Samesituation Yes No

12.Bcanmakeaformalappeal(onhis/her own,orbyappealingtotheopposition)in caseofmisuseofpower

Yes,legalrecourse Yes,legalrecourse Samesituation Yes Yes

13.Socialbacking:behindthedelegationof powertoA,thereissocialbacking(religious, political,economic,etc.)acceptedbyBand byalargepartofthepopulation;A’spower isnotobtainedviausurpation

Yes,

science-related

Yes,

television-related

Samesituation Yes Yes

14.Aisresponsibleinfrontofathirdparty licensedtomakejudgmentsaboutwhat happensbetweenBandhim/herself

15.Aabsolutelymusthaveongoing surveillance(inrealtime)overB;without thissurveillance,theprobabilitythatBwill disobeyisgreat

Yes Yes Samesituation No No

Aisthepersonwhohasthepower.Bisthedependentpersonsubjectedtothatpower.Forcomparison,analysisoftheforeman/workerrelation:sevensharestraits.For comparison,analysisofthesocialworker/sociallydisadvantagedpersonrelation:eightsharestraits.

astheyparticipatedtogetherasplayersinaTVgameshow.Because thefilmingwassaidtobeforapilotshowaimedattestingthegame

“underreal conditions”andimproving itif needbe,theywere

informedthattheywouldnotwinanymoney,unlikethefuture

gamecontestantswhowouldtrytogethertowinamillioneuros. Inthreeconditionsoutoffour,theplayerswerealsotoldthatthe filmwouldnotbebroadcastedonTV.Foroneoftheplayers(“the

questioner”),thetaskconsistedofaskingquestions;fortheother (“thecontestant”),thetaskwastoanswercorrectly.Theywere toldthatthepenaltyforeachincorrectanswerwouldbeanelectric

shock delivered by the “questioner” to the “contestant”. The

allegedproducerthenhadthesubjectsdrawstrawstodetermine

whichpersonwouldplaywhichrole.Thedrawingwasriggedso

(7)

J.-L.Beauvoisetal./Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119 115 Table2

Characteristicsofthesample:gender,age,andreality-TVwatching. Caractéristiquesdel’échantillon:sexe,âgeetconsommationdetélé-réalité.

Gender Total(n)

Male(n) Female(n)

Experimentalpopulation 40 36 76

18ofwhom(23.7%) wereavidwatchersof realityTVa

Agegroup

25–29 8 6 14

30–34 7 5 12

3ofwhom(25%)were avidwatchersofreality TVa

35–39 7 7 14

40–44 6 7 13

45–49 6 6 12

50–55 6 5 11

Meanage(inyears) 39.6 39.8 39.7

a_At_least_four_French_reality-TV_shows_watched_on_a_regular_basis.

accomplice was always the contestant. Once this information wasgiven,theproduceraskedtheplayersiftheystillwantedto participateinthepilot.Noonerefused.

Aftera make-up session, thetwo playerswereledonstage where theywereawaitedby thegame host(a femaleweather forecasterforaFrenchnationalTVstation),theaudience,anda warm-upcomedianwhosejobwastoorganizetheapplauseand encouragementstocontinuethegame.Then,infrontofthecamera, thehostexplainedthegameasfollows.Thecontestantwouldbe givenalimitedamountoftimetolearnalistof27pairsofrelated words(e.g.,cloudy-sky,tame-animal,etc.).Thenthequestioner wouldsaythefirstwordineachpairandthecontestantwould havetofindtherelated wordamong thefourwordsproposed. Ifthecontestantmadeamistake,thequestionerwastodeliver anelectricshock,increasingtheshock’sintensityeachtime.The teamofplayerswould winiftheywereablegetthroughall27

questions(whetherornottheanswerswerecorrectorincorrect andpenalizedbyanelectricshock).Oncetheseruleswerestated, thecontestantwastakenintoachamberwherehewouldnotbe seenbythequestionerortheaudience.Infrontofeveryone,before thedoorofthechamberwasclosed,thecontestantwasstrapped tothechairinwhichhewouldreceivetheshocks,andshownthe buttonstopresstochoosetherightanswer.Thequestionerwas seatedatadeskinthecenterofthestage,undertheprojectors andcameras,withhis/herbacktotheaudienceandfacingagiant screenwherethequestionswouldbedisplayedinsuccession.The questionerwasshownthehandlestobeusedtodeliverthe(fake) electricshockstothecontestant,withanincreaseof20voltsfor eachnewwronganswer.Theshocksrangedfrom20voltsto460 voltsandweregroupedtogetherinsetslabeled:

•SlightShocks(20,40,60volts);

Table3

Socio-occupationalcharacteristicsofsample. Catégoriessocioprofessionnellesdel’échantillon.

Socialcategory:socialclass(occupation) n(%)

A:Uppermiddleclass(highermanagerial,administrative,orprofessional) 1(1.3) B:Middleclass(intermediatemanagerial,administrative,orprofessional) 12(15.6) C1:Lowermiddleclass(supervisoryorclerical,juniormanagerial,administrative,orprofessional) 31 (40.2)

C2:Skilledworkingclass(skilledmanualworkers) 24(31.2)

D:Workingclass(semi-skilledandunskilledmanualworkers) 5(6.5) E:Personsatthelowestlevelofsubsistence,statepensionersorwidows(nootherwageearner),casualorlowestgradeworkers 3(3.9)

(8)

Author's personal copy

•ModerateShocks(80,100,120); •StrongShocks(140,160,180); •VeryStrongShocks(200,220,240); •IntenseShocks(260,280,300);

•ExtremelyIntenseShocks(320,340,360); •Danger:SevereShocks(380,400,420); •XXX(440,460).

The music and spotlights were turned on, and the host

announcedthatthegamecouldbegin.

According to a predetermined schedule, the contestant

respondedincorrectly24timesoutof27.Ifthequestionerbeganto hesitateorrefusedtogoon,thehostintervenedbygivingatmost fiveprodstourgetheplayerstocontinue.Thefirstfourprodswere wordedinaMilgram-likefashion(“Goonwiththequestions”,“Go on,don’tletyourselfgetupset”,“Therulessayyoumustgoon”,“Go on,wearetakingallresponsibilityforthis”).Onlythefifthprod“You can’tmakehimlose;whatdoestheaudiencethink?”wasspecific tothetelevisionsituation;theaudienceinsistedthatthegamebe continued.AsinMilgram,startingfromwhentheshockreached80 volts,thecontestant’spre-recordedreactionswereheard:grunts atfirst,thenloudcriesofpainaccompaniedbyrefusaltocontinue, thenscreamsandpleastostopthegame.After380volts,the con-testantsaidherefusedtogoon.After420volts,nothingmorecould beheard.

Thegameendedeitherwhenthequestionerhadaskedall27

questions(whichinvolvedtwoshocksof460volts)orwhen,in

spiteofthehost’sfiveprods,thequestionerdecidedtostop.The questionerswereinformedoftherigginguponleavingthestage. Then,inacalmplace,theyweredebriefedatlength.

2.5. Post-experimentaldebriefing

The debriefings were doneby a two-person team that was

alwaysmadeupofapsychologistandaspecialistinthe communi-cationsciences.Fiveareaswerecovered:

•demystification,whichincludedthetwoaccomplices(contestant andproducer).Afterthequestionershadmetthecontestantand noticedthathewasfine,theywereaskedtoratetheirdegreeof psychologicalstressastheyplayedthegame;

•attributionsofresponsibility.Theyratedtheextenttowhichthe gameproducer,thehost,thecontestant,theaudience,andthe questionerhim/herselfwereresponsibleforwhathappened.The questionerhadtodivideup100pointsofresponsibilityamong thesefivepersons;

•verbalization of the questioner’s feelings, which consisted of

letting him/herspeak freelywithout contestinganypotential

rationalizations;

•statistics-baseddemonstrationthatobediencewasthemost fre-quentbehaviorandthatthecausalweightcarriedbythesituation accountedforthisbehavior;

•informationindicatingthattheexperimentwouldbe

incorpo-ratedintoaTVdocumentaryaimedatopposingcertainformsof realityTV.Thedebriefingslastedbetween1and2hours. 2.6. Measuresofobedience

Like Milgram(1974),weusedtwo obediencemeasures.One was a binary measure: obedience vs. disobedience. Obedience occurredwhenthequestionerwentallthewayuptothestrongest shock(here,460volts);disobedienceoccurredwhenthequestioner refusedtogothat high. Thesecond measurewasa continuous measurewithseveraldegreesofobediencerangingfrom“absolute refusal”to“absoluteobedience”.Inthiscase,thecriterionwasthe numberofshocksdelivered.Thetheoreticalrangewas0to24(at

most24shocks,oneperincorrectanswer).Inourdata,theobserved valuesrangedfrom5to24.

3. Results

3.1. Resultsrelatingtoobedience

First,wecomparedourresultsonthebinaryobedience crite-rion(Table4)toMilgram’sresultsinthesimilarconditions.Our standardcondition(81%obedience)didnotdifferstatisticallyfrom Milgram’svoice-feedbackcondition(62.5%)(Chi2₍₁₎₌_3.02,_P₌_.08;

Cramer’sV=0.20).Likewise,thehost-withdrawalcondition(28% obedience)didnotdifferfromMilgram’scondition“experimenter absence”(20.5%)(Chi2₍₁₎₌_0.12,_P₌_.73;_Cramer’s_V₌_0.05).

Thenwecompared ourfourexperimentalconditionstoeach other,again,onthebinaryobediencecriterion.Onlythestandard conditionandthehost-withdrawalconditiondifferedsignificantly (YatesChi2₌_5.48,_P_<_.02;_Cramer’s_V₌_0.45)._The_standard,

social-support,and TV-broadcastconditions did not differ,given that thelasttwoconditionsdidnotdifferfromthehost-withdrawal condition (all Chi2 _were _{non-significant).} _Lastly, _the _standard,

social-support,andTV-broadcastconditionspooleddidnotdiffer fromthehost-withdrawalcondition.

On the degree-of-obedience measure (number of shocks delivered), one-wayAnovaandpaired-contrastshowedagainthat onlythestandardconditiondifferedsignificantlyfromthe host-withdrawalcondition(F(1.72)=5.62,P=.02,d=0.56).Butthistime, thestandard,social-support, andTV-broadcastconditions taken togetherdiffered(M=21.2)fromthehost-withdrawalcondition (M=16.4,[F(1.72)=4.75,P=.03,d=0.51]).Thus,wecanopposethe conditionthatproducedthemostdisobedience(host-withdrawal) totheotherthreeconditions,whichmainlyproducedobedience.

Theresultsindicated thatthemenandwomenwereequally obedient, which is consistent with many earlier observations (Blass,1999,2000)includingarecentreproductionofMilgram’s experiment(Burger,2009).Therewasalsonodifferencebetween personsfromdifferentsocio-occupationalcategories,betweenthe olderandyoungersubjects,orbetweentheavidreality-TV watch-ersandtheothers.Thisabsenceofdifferenceswasfoundnomatter what measure was used: the binary obedience/disobedience criterion or the degree of obedience (number of shocks delivered).

3.2. Questioners’attributionsofresponsibility

Atthebeginningofthedebriefing,thequestionerhadtodivide up100pointsofresponsibilityamongthegameproducer,thehost, him/herself,theaudience,andthecontestant.Asawhole,pairwise comparisonsshowedthatonlytwopairsdidnotdiffersignificantly. Thefirstwasthequestioner(M=29.17) andtheproducer(who wasassignedthegreatestamountofresponsibility:M=39.76).The secondwastheaudience(M=7.487)andthecontestant(whowas assignedthesmallestamountofresponsibility:4.77)(Table5).All otherpairsdifferencedsignificantlyatP<.05(Table6).

Forthepartialresultsconcerningtheobedientvs.disobedient subjects’attributionsofresponsibilitytotheproducervs.the ques-tioner,themeansindicatedastatisticallysignificantinteraction: obedientsubjectsattributedmoreresponsibilitytotheproducer thantothemselves,whereasdisobedientsubjectsdidjustthe oppo-site(Table7).

Thisinteractionwassignificantforthestandard,TV-broadcast, and social-support conditions taken together (F(1.63)=5.08, P<.03),threehomogeneousconditionsinthesensethattheywere mostlyobedience-generating.

(9)

J.-L.Beauvoisetal./Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119 117 Table4

Numberofobedientquestionersandmeannumberofshocksdeliveredinthefourconditions.

Nombredequestionneursobéissantsetnombremoyendechocsélectriquesdélivrésdanslesquatreconditions.

Condition Standard (n=32) Socialsupport (n=19) TV-broadcast (n=18) Host-withdrawal (n=7)

Numberofquestionerswhowentalltheway totheend(obedient)

n=26(81%) n=14(74%) n=13(72%) n=2(28%) Meannumberofshocksdelivered(degreeof

obedience) M=21.91 s=4.00 M=20.63 s=6.00 M=20.67 s=5.97 M=16.43 s=5.80 M:mean;s:standarddeviation;():percentageofobedientsubjectsineachcondition.

Table5

Attributionofresponsibilitybyobedientanddisobedientquestionerstotheproducer,questionerhim/herself,host,audience,andcontestant.

Attributiondelaresponsabilitéauproducteur,questionneurlui/elle-même,animatrice,publicetcandidat,effectuéeparlesquestionneursobéissantsetdésobéissants.

Producer Questioner Host Audience Contestant

Obedientsubjects M=43.14 M=25.20 M=19.20 M=7.52 M=5.13 n=51 s=34.45 s=29.74 s=22.12 s=15.11 s=10.82 Disobedientsubjects M=30.53 M=40.05 M=18.26 M=7.37 M=3.79 n=20 s=31.31 s=34.83 s=16.38 s=13.06 s=8.06 Allsubjects M=39.76 M=29.17 M=18.95 M=7.48 M=4.77 n=71 s=33.15 s=31.63 s=20.63 s=14.98 s=10.14

M:mean;s:standarddeviation.Thequestionerhadtoassignresponsibilitybydividingup100pointsacrossfivetargets.

3.3. Additionalresultsaboutquestionerbehavior

First,toourgreatsurprise,thefifthprod,whichwasspecific

totheTV setting (appealtotheaudienceby thehostfollowed

byencouragementtocontinuefromthepublic),didnothavethe expectedeffect.Ofthe16questionerswhoheardthefifthprod, inthethreestandard,social-supportandTV-broadcastconditions, onlyoneyieldedtopressurefromtheaudience.Hewentalltheway uptothehighestvoltage.Thefifthprodturnedouttobeespecially necessaryforthedisobedientquestioners.Mostoftheobedient oneswenttotheveryendafteronlytwoorthreeprods.

Second,recallthatforMilgram,ifcertainsubjectsdisobey,itis lessformoralreasonsthantoreleasetension.Henotedanumberof

othertension-reducingphenomena.Eventhoughourexperiment

wasconducted45yearsafterMilgram’s,andinaverydifferent con-text,weobservedthesamephenomena.Tobegin,thequestioners

laughedinthemoderate-shockrange(70%ofquestionerslaughed openlyat80volts,whenthecontestantfirstmakesacomplaint). Thenat180volts,anotherphenomenonappeared:cheating(17%of thesubjects),whichconsistedofusingatoneofvoicethatmadethe rightanswerobvioustothecontestant(modeat220volts).Lastly,

when thecontestantscreamedat320volts(70%ofquestioners

still in thegame),theydidwhatMilgram called“psychological eliminationofthecontestant”consistingofignoringthecontestant bytalkingtocoveruphisscreams(modeat340volts).

3.4. Answerstopost-experimentalquestionnaire(5weeksafter theexperiment)

Outofthe76questionnairessentout,64werereturned.The questions fellintofourcategories:a:reasonsforcongratulating oneselffor havingparticipated;b:reasonsforregrettinghaving

Table6

Comparisonofmeans(F)ofquestioners’attributionsofresponsibility(obedientanddisobedientsubjectspooled,n=71,df=70). Comparaisondesmoyennes(F)desattributionsderesponsabilitéeffectuéesparlesquestionneurs(sujetsobéissantsetdésobéissantsregroupés).

Producer M=39.76 Questioner M=29.17 Host M=18.95 Audience M=7.48 Questioner M=29.17 F=2.34 (d=.37) Host M=18.95 F=15.13*** (d=.93) F=4.16* (d=.49) Audience M=7.48 F=48.16*** (d=1.66) F=23.43*** (d=1.16) F=14.51*** (d=.91) Contestant M=4.77 F=64.64*** (d=1.92) F=34.69*** (d=1.41) F=28.52*** (d=1.28) F=1.82 (d=.32) M:mean;d:Cohen’sd;*_P_<_.05;***_P_<_.001. Table7

Attributionofresponsibilitytotheproducerandquestionerbyobedientanddisobedientsubjectsinthestandard,TV-broadcast,andsocialsupportconditionspooled. Attributionderesponsabilitéauproducteuretauquestionneur,effectuéeparlessujetsobéissantsetdésobéissants,danslestroisconditionsregroupées:standard,passageàla télévisionetsupportsocial.

Producer Questioner Simpleeffects(df)

Obedient M=43.67 s=33.78 M=24.61 s=29.91 F(1.51)=5.38 P=.02(d=.65) Disobedient M=25.33 s=29.18 M=44.07 s=35.65 NS Simpleeffects(df) F(1.63)=3.61 P=.06(d=.48) F(1.63)=4.45 P=04(d=.53) M:mean;s:standarddeviation;P:significancelevel;d:Cohen’sd.

(10)

Author's personal copy

participated;c:perceptionsoftheresearchteam;d: attractive-nessandutilityofnewstudies.Fora,b,andc,theresponsescale rangedfrom0to3.Ford,theanswerchoiceswere“yes”and“no” (Supplementarydata):

a)reasonsforcongratulatingoneselfforhavingparticipated.There wereninequestionsinthiscategory(e.g.“Ilearnedthingsabout myself”,“Ilearnedmoreabouttheworldoftelevision”,“Ilearned thingsaboutpeople”,etc.).Onlyonequestionobtainedamean belowthetheoreticalmeanof1.5:“ItwasmychancetobeonTV” (M=0.84).Thehighestmeanswerefoundfor“It’salways inter-estingtoparticipateinapsychologyexperiment”(M=2.42)and “WemustfightthedeleteriouseffectsofrealityTV”(M=2.59); b)reasons for regretting having participated. This category includedeightquestions(e.g.“Itwastoohardforme”,“Iwould haveratherbeenonarealrealityTVshow”,“People’sdarksides shouldnotberevealedlikethis”).Noneofthequestionsreached thetheoreticalmeanof1.5.Thehighestmeanwasobservedfor thereason“It’stoohardfortheaverageperson”(M=1.2).The lowestmeanswereobtainedforthequestions“Istillhaven’t recovered”(M=0.29)and“I’malittleafraidofmyco-workers’ reactions”(M=0.47);

c)perceptionsoftheresearchteam(researchersanddebriefers). Here,welistedeighttraits,withapositive(e.g.warm)or nega-tive(e.g.inahurry)connotation.Thepositivetraitsobtained a meanbetween 2 and 3 (e.g. competent: M=2.7;devoted: M=2.5).Thenegative-traitmeanswerebetween0and1.5(e.g. conceited:=0.42;nervous:M=0.9);

d)attractivenessandutilityofnewstudies.Thiscategoryincluded sixquestions,mostofwhichobtainedpositiveresponses.For example,89%ofthequestionersanswered“yes”tothe ques-tion“Iwouldparticipateinanewexperimentiftheoccasion arose”;94%answered“yes”to“Theproducers’projectjustified ourhavinggonethroughthis”.

4. Discussion

Inthepresentstudy,weadvancethat,inadditiontotheimpact thatTVimageshaveonviewers(BryantandOliver,2009;Courbet andFourquet,2003;Marchand,2004),theholdthattelevisionhas onpeopleissuchthat,forpersonsonthestageofaTVgameshow, itrepresentsanauthoritystrongenoughtomake themcommit clearlyimmoralordangerousacts.Todemonstratethis,we trans-posedMilgram’sfamousexperimentalobedienceparadigmtothe contextofaTVgameshowwithaliveaudienceandnoprizes.

Asfarasweknow,thisisthefirsttimeMilgram’selectric-shock procedurehaseverbeencarefullyreplicatedinasocialfieldwhere sciencewasnotthesourceoflegitimacyfortheagentofauthority4_.

Here,itwastheauthorityofthetelevisionthatwasatstake.Note thatthecredibilityofthetelevisionenvironmentwecreatedwas validatedbythestatisticalequivalenceoftheresultsobtainedinthe standardcondition(nobroadcasting)andtheTV-broadcast con-dition.Inthis game-showsetting, wherea hostincarnatingthe televisualauthoritywaspresent,mostpeoplewereobedient,i.e., theydeliveredelectricshocksthatwereasstrongandasfrequent astheonesusedbyMilgram,whethertheyhadbeentoldthatthe showwouldorwouldnotbebroadcasted.Thisisthefirstnotable resultofthisresearch.

4_A_few_researchers_objected_that_obedience_to_the_authority_figure_in_Milgram’s situationwasnotduesolelytohislegitimacy.Theyarguedthattheauthoritywas alsorootedintheattributionoftechnicalskillfulnessforoperatingthedevice(Blass andSchmitt,2001;Morelli,1983).Here,onecannotascribeanyobservedobedience tosomeassumedskillfulnessthehostmighthavehadforoperatingthe electric-shockdevice,sinceshewasknownasaTVweatherforecaster.

Itseems,then,thateveninhighlydifferentcontexts,the deter-miningfactoristhephysicalproximityofapersoninvestedwiththe righttogiveorders(evenifonlytemporarily).Thesecondnotable resultofthis researcharisesfromthefact thattheonly experi-mentalconditionthattriggeredsignificantlymoredisobedience(to extentslikethosefoundbyMilgram)wastheconditionwherethe agentofauthoritywentoffstage.Despitethesmallsamplesizefor thisexperimentalcondition,itsconfirmationofoneofMilgram’s resultsaddstoitsmerit.

We thus attributed obedience behaviors to the prescriptive powerdelegatedtothehostposition.However,two alternative interpretations must be considered. The first alternative inter-pretation involves theinfluence of the televisual environment: the cameras, music, projectors, monitors, audience, technicians running back and forth, cameramenfilming, etc. These factors allcontributedtotheauthenticityofthetelevisualenvironment, impressed subjectsand contributed to theirimplication in the show’sconceptanditssuccess.Itisthereforelegitimatetowonder iftheobediencewasaproductofthisinfluence.Twoarguments allowustoanswerinthenegative.First,thoughaudience inter-ventionisastrongelementinthetelevisualenvironment,wefound thataudienceintervention(fifthprod)encouragingthequestioner tocontinuedidnothavetheanticipatedeffect.Thesecond argu-mentstemsfromtheconditionwheredisobedienceisobserved: whenthehostleavestheset.Thoughthehostisabsent,the televi-sualenvironmentremainsunchanged(lights,projectors,cameras, audience,etc.).

Thesecondalterativeinterpretationinvolvesthesubjects’ com-mitmenttothesituation.Subjectswent throughvariousphases beginningwiththeirarrivalinthestudio.Theymettheproducer who,aftergivingtheminformationaboutthegameandabouttheir role,askedthemtodecidewhetherornottheywouldliketo pro-ceed. Theythen spendsometimewiththemake-upartistwho preparedthemfortheshow.Atthispoint,subjectscanstillleave. Theythenhadafirstmeetingwiththehostandthecontestant. ThehostsaskedthemifeverythingwasOK.Thesubjectsanswered yes.Subjectsarethusinasituationwhichisparticularlybinding, asituationwhich,uptothispoint,isgovernedbywhatisdefined, operationally,asfreechoice.Intheory,this combinationprimes themforotherfreelychosenbehaviorsthatfollowthecourseof action (Jouleand Beauvois,1998).Wemust nevertheless elimi-natethissecondinterpretationofobedience.Whenthesubjects arriveontheset,thesituationchanges,effectivelymarkingthe endofthefree-choice5_._They_are_now_in_front_of_a_host_who_gives

theminstructions,“Continue.Donotletyourselfbeinfluenced...” Theseinstructionsaretypicalofpowersituationswherethehost hasreceivedadelegation.Itisnolongeramatterofchoosingor deciding,butratherofobeyingordisobeyingthehost.Evenif sub-jectsarecommitted,whenthehostleaves,subjectsmaydisobey, andthisisinfactwhattheydomostofthetime.Weareledto concludethatourresultsareduetothehost’spositionasapower agent,comparabletoMilgram’sresearcher.

If thebehavioral data obtainedin this study was very sim-ilar to Milgram’s, so wasthe attribution data collected during the debriefing. Our questioners attributed a large part of the responsibility tothemselves.Like Milgram,wecansuggestthat theseattributionswererootedinaretrospectiveinterpretationof whathappened.Whenansweringtheresponsibilityquestion,the questionerswerenolongerintheexperimentalsituation,sothey couldrationalizetheirbehavior.Todoso,theymayhavelooked forexplanationsintheZeitgeistandintoday’sprevailingnorms,

5_We_are_not_suggesting_that_the_subjects_are_being_deprived_of_basic_freedom, butthefactthattheyarenolongerinvitedtodecideoperationallycharacterizes commitmentsituations(Beauvois,2005,2011).

(11)

J.-L.Beauvoisetal./Revueeuropéennedepsychologieappliquée62(2012)111–119 119

whichprompt ustobeheldaccountable forouracts(Beauvois and Dubois, 1988; Dubois, 2009; Dubois and Beauvois, 2008). Note,however,thatunlikethedisobedientsubjects,theobedient onesattributedlessresponsibilitytothemselves—inlinewiththe patternoftheagentstate—thantotheproducer.Thisisconsistent withMilgram’s (1974)ideathatthevery factofbeinganagent meansacceptingoneselfasanexecutingagentforsomeotheragent ofpower,thelatterofwhomistheoneheldresponsibleforwhat happens.

Astrikingthinghereisthattheconditionwheresocialsupport fordisobediencewasprovidedbyanassistantwhoarrivedonstage andrequestedthatthegamebestoppedbecauseitwasbecoming dangerousdidnotproducedisobedience.Thistroublingfindinghas beenobservedrecentlybyotherresearchers:conditionsdesigned toproducedisobedience,andwhichproduceddisobedienceunder Milgram’s experimental conditions, have ended up producing mostlyobedience.Burger(2009),forexample,foundthatthe inter-ventionofanaccomplicewhorefusedtocontinuedidnotgenerate theexpecteddisobedience.Coulditbethattheperiodweareliving inpredisposespeopletogreaterobedience6_?_What_we_found_here

inthetelevisionstudioisthatobediencecontinuestobeareality, atatimewhenmanyauthorsbelievethatoursocietiesareevolving insteadtowardgreaterpermissiveness,towardmore“negotiated” powersandeventowardtheendofauthorityaltogether(Friedberg, 1997;LemelandGalland,1988).Whilethisisnotsufficienttomake theargumentthatcurrenttimesencouragegreaterobediencethan wasthecaseinthe1960s,ourobservations,likethoseofBurger, warrantatleastsomeskepticismabouttheseslikethatoftheend ofauthority.Theyalsohelpusunderstandwhy,intoday’sliberal society,“moralrebels”maybestigmatized(Moninetal.,2008).

Ithaslongbeenknownthattelevision,andsotelevisionhosts, hadinfluenceonviewers.Wesuspectedtheycouldalsohave pre-scriptivepowerfororderingpeople’sbehavioronatelevisionstage, includingcontrattitudinal,cruelandimmoralbehaviors.Butithad neverbeenshown.Thepresentresearchdemonstratesthisaspect. ThissheerfactshouldputTVshowproducersandchannelsface tofacewiththeirpotentialresponsibilityforpossibledeleterious effectsofrealityTVgamesandshows.

Disclosureofinterest

Theauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenoconflictsofinterest con-cerningthisarticle.

AppendixA. Supplementarydata

Supplementarydataassociatedwiththisarticlecanbefound, in the online version, at http://www.sciencedirect.com and doi:10.1016/j.erap.2012.02.001.

References

Beauvois,J.-L,2005.LesIllusionslibérales.Petittraitédesgrandesillusions[The liberalillusions.Littletreatiseofthegreatillusions].PressesUniversitairesde Grenoble,Grenoble.

Beauvois,J.-L.,2011.Lesinfluencessournoises[Theinsidiousinfluences].Franc¸ ois-Bourin,Paris.

Beauvois, J.-L., Dubois, N., 1988. The norm of internality in the explana-tion of psychological events. European Journal of Social Psychology 18, 299–316.

6 _The_subtitle_of_Burger’s₍₂₀₀₉₎_article_is:_“Would_people_still_obey_today?”.

Berkowitz,L.,1986.Situationalinfluencesonreactionstoobservedviolence.Journal ofSocialIssues42(3),93–106.

Blass, T.,Schmitt,C.,2001.Thenature ofperceivedauthorityintheMilgram paradigm:tworeplications.CurrentPsychology20,115–121.

Blass,T.(Ed.),2000.Obediencetoauthority:currentperspectivesontheMilgram paradigm.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Mahwah,NJ.

Blass, T., 1999. The Milgram paradigmafter 35years: Some thingswe now knowaboutobediencetoauthority.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology29, 955–978.

Blass, T., 2009. From New Haven to Santa Clara: a historical perspec-tive on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist 64, 37–45.

Bryant,J.,Oliver,M.B.(Eds.),2009.Mediaeffects:advancesintheoryandresearch. Routledge,NewYork.

Burger,J.M.,2009.ReplicatingMilgram:wouldpeoplestillobeytoday?American Psychologist64,1–11.

Coenen-Huther, J., 2005. Pouvoir, autorité, légitimité. En marge d’un livre récent d’AlainRenaut [Power,authority,legitimacy. On thesidelines ofa recent bookby AlainRenaut].RevueEuropéennede SciencesSociales43, 135–145.

Courbet,D.,Fourquet,M.-P.(Eds.),2003.Latélévisionetsesinfluences[The televi-sionanditsinfluences].DeBoeck,Bruxelles.

DeVos,J.,2010.FromMilgramtoZimbardo:thedoublebirthofpostwarpsychology/ psychologization[Thenormofinternalityandtheliberalism].Historyofthe HumanSciences23(5),156–175.

Dubois,N.,2009.Lanormed’internalitéetlelibéralisme.PressesUniversitairesde Grenoble,Grenoble.

Dubois, N.,Beauvois,J.-L.,2008.Thesocialvalueofinternalexplanationsand thenormofinternalitytheory.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyCompass2, 1737–1752.

Friedberg,E.,1997.Lepouvoiretlarègle[Thepowerandtherule].LeSeuil,Paris. Haslam,S.A.,Reicher,S.,2006.Stressingthegroup:socialidentityandthe

unfold-ing dynamicsofresponsesto stress.JournalofAppliedPsychology91(5), 1037–1052.

Joule, R.-V.,Beauvois,J.-L.,1998. Lasoumissionlibrementconsentie(Thefree acceptedcompliance).PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,Paris.

Lemel,Y.,Galland,O.,1988.Lanouvellesociétéfranc¸aise.Trenteansde muta-tion [The new French society. Thirty years of change]. Armand Colin, Paris.

Marchand,P.(Ed.),2004.Psychologiesocialedesmédias[Social psychologyof media].PressesUniversitairesdeRennes,Rennes.

McGuire,W.J.,1986.Themythofmassivemediaimpact.In:Comstock,C.(Ed.),Public communicationandbehavior.AcademicPress,Orlando.

Meeus,W.,Raaijmakers,Q.,1986.Administrativeobedience:carryingoutordersto usepsychological-administrativeviolence.EuropeanJournalofSocial Psychol-ogy16,311–324.

Meeus,W.,Raaijmakers,Q.,1987.Administrativeobedienceasasocialphenomenon. In:Doise,W.,Moscovici,S.(Eds.),CurrentissuesinEuropeansocialpsychology. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,pp.183–230.

Milgram,S.,1963.Behaviouralstudyofobedience.JournalofAbnormalandSocial Psychology67,371–378.

Milgram,S.,1974.Obediencetoauthority.Anexperimentalview.Harper,Row,New York.

Miller,A.B.,1986.Theobedienceexperiments:acasestudyofcontroversyinsocial science.Praeger,NewYork.

Monin,B.,Sawyer,P.J.,Marquez,M.J.,2008.Therejectionofmoralrebels:resenting thosewhodotherightthing.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology95 (1),76–93.

Morelli, M., 1983. Milgram’s dilemma of obedience. Metaphilosophy 14, 183–189.

Nabi, R.L., Hendriks, A., 2003. The persuasive effect of host and audience reactionshots intelevisiontalk shows.Journal ofCommunication 53(3), 527–543.

Oberlé, D., Beauvois, J., Courbet, D., 2011. Une transposition du paradigme d’obéissance deMilgram àla télévision:enjeux, résultatset perspectives [Applying Milgram’sobedienceparadigmto television:issues, resultsand prospects].Connexions95(1),71.

Packer,D.J., 2008.Identifyingsystematic disobedienceinMilgram’sobedience experiments:ameta-analyticreview.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience3 (4),301–304.

Reicher,S.,Haslam,S.A.,2011.Aftershock?Towardsasocialidentityexplanation oftheMilgram“obedience”studies.BritishJournalofSocialPsychology50(1), 163–169.

Russell, N.J.C., 2011. Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: ori-gins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology 50 (1), 140–162.