Hollander-Turowetz2018
| Hollander-Turowetz2018 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hollander-Turowetz2018 |
| Author(s) | Matthew M. Hollander, Jason Turowetz |
| Title | Multiple compliant processes: A reply to Haslam and Reicher on the engaged followership explanation of ‘obedience’ in Milgram's experiments |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Obedience |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | British Journal of Social Psychology |
| Volume | 57 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 301–309 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12252 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Haslam and Reicher (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 57, 292–300) offer a thoughtful rejoinder to our critique (Hollander & Turowetz, 2017, Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 56, 655–674) of their theory of engaged followership, currently the most important explanation of ‘obedient’ behaviour in the Milgram paradigm. Our immersion in Milgram's archived audio recordings has led us to new findings about participants’ perspectives, as well as to dissatisfaction with the theory in its present version. Following a brief discussion of our findings, which cast the theory in doubt, we respond to Haslam and Reicher's argument that these data may in fact be consistent with it. Our response identifies three limitations of engaged followership emerging from this debate. Despite the strengths of the theory and these authors’ impressive re‐analysis of our findings, important reasons remain for scepticism that engaged followership operated in Milgram's experiments in the way, and to the extent, that they claim. Rather, ‘obedience’ appears amenable to multiple empirically grounded explanations, only one of which is engaged followership.
Notes
