“Ordinary Men,” Extraordinary Circumstances: Historians, Social Psychology, and the Holocaust

Abstract

For historians the Holocaust is among the most complex historical situations inFor historians the Holocaust is among the most complex historical situations in which to try to explain perpetrator behavior. This is partly because the Holocaust differs from other forms of mass killing because of its long-term, systematic, and controlled nature, and partly because the number of men (no women were actually involved in carrying out the face-to-face killing) who played a direct part in the genocide was very great, suggesting that any analysis of why they behaved the way they did must rely on a variety of explanations rather than a generic core (Lower, 2013). The most difficult methodological problem lies in the nature of the evidence. Much of the work on reconstructing the motivation of perpetrators in the Holocaust has relied on cross-examination material taken from participants

50:50 Hindsight: Appreciating Anew the Contributions of Milgram's Obedience Experiments

“…For example, Haslam and colleagues () show that the experimental prod that is most clearly an order (“you have no choice, you must continue) is also least likely to produce obedience (Burger, ; Reicher, Haslam, & Miller, ). Indeed, as Haslam and colleagues argue, this raises the question of whether these obedience studies are about obedience at all (see also Overy, ).…”

“…Here, a parallel can be drawn with Asch's () line judgment studies in which those who went along with the majority reported just as much stress and confusion as those who dissented (Jetten & Hornsey, ). Yet the similarity in behavior between those who are obedient and disobedient (and those who conform vs. rebel) may not be that surprising because the same motivation may underlie both obedience and disobedience: wanting to help the experimenter and to “do the right thing” (Einwohner, ; Ent & Baumeister, ; Haslam & Reicher, ; Jetten & Hornsey, , ; Overy, ).…”

“…In order to answer this, we need to look more closely at the "ingredients" that Milgram added to the context in order to make obedience more likely. Many of the contributors to the current issue discuss these and note that obedience levels are heightened when there is an incremental increase in shock levels (Burger, 2014;Miller, 2014), the victim only starts protesting at an advanced stage of the study (Overy, 2014;Rochat & Blass, 2014), the prods appear to justify continuation (Haslam, Reicher, & Birney, 2014), and the study is conducted by a high-status authority at a high-status university (e.g., Ent & Baumeister, 2014). Others also note that the context was structured in such a way that it triggered psychological processes known to discourage rebellion.…”

Observing Obedience: How Sophisticated are Social Perceivers?

“…In his original article, Milgram (1963) suggested a variety of complex possible explanations for the high level of obedience he reported. A decade later, however, Milgram (1974) settled on an appealingly simplistic explanation-the "agentic state"-where the pressure from the experimenter turns the teachers into automatons focused on fulfilling their duty to him (see Overy, 2014;Reicher, Haslam, & Miller, 2014).…”

Just following orders? The rhetorical invocation of ‘obedience’ in Stanley Milgram's post‐experiment interviews

“…In recent years this perspective has come under increasing scrutiny from both historians and psychologists (e.g. Haslam & Reicher, 2007;Lang, 2014;Overy, 2014). Milgram's studies were always controversial (e.g.…”