Difference between revisions of "Hollander-Maynard2016"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Matthew M. Hollander; Douglas W. Maynard; |Title=Do Unto Others . . . ? Methodological Advance and Self- Versus Other-Attentive Resista...") |
BogdanaHuma (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Matthew M. Hollander; Douglas W. Maynard; | + | |Author(s)=Matthew M. Hollander; Douglas W. Maynard; |
|Title=Do Unto Others . . . ? Methodological Advance and Self- Versus Other-Attentive Resistance in Milgram’s “Obedience” Experiments | |Title=Do Unto Others . . . ? Methodological Advance and Self- Versus Other-Attentive Resistance in Milgram’s “Obedience” Experiments | ||
| − | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Obedience; Authority; Milgram; Participation; Resistance | |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Obedience; Authority; Milgram; Participation; Resistance | ||
|Key=Hollander-Maynard2016 | |Key=Hollander-Maynard2016 | ||
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2017 |
|Journal=Social Psychology Quarterly | |Journal=Social Psychology Quarterly | ||
| − | |URL=http:// | + | |Volume=79 |
| + | |Number=4 | ||
| + | |Pages=355-375 | ||
| + | |URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0190272516648967 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/0190272516648967 | |DOI=10.1177/0190272516648967 | ||
|Abstract=We introduce conversation analysis (CA) as a methodological innovation that contributes to studies of the classic Milgram experiment, one allowing for substantive advances in the social psychological “obedience to authority” paradigm. Data are 117 audio recordings of Milgram’s original experimental sessions. We discuss methodological features of CA and then show how CA allows for methodological advances in understanding the Milgramesque situation by treating it as a three-party interactional scene, explicating an interactional dilemma for the “Teacher” subjects, and decomposing categorical outcomes (obedience vs. defiance) into their concrete interactional routes. Substantively, we analyze two kinds of resistance to directives enacted by both obedient and defiant participants, who may orient to how continuation would be troublesome primarily for themselves (self-attentive resistance) or for the person receiving shocks (other-attentive resistance). Additionally, we find that defiant participants mobilize two other-attentive practices almost never used by obedient ones: Golden Rule accounts and “letting the Learner decide.” | |Abstract=We introduce conversation analysis (CA) as a methodological innovation that contributes to studies of the classic Milgram experiment, one allowing for substantive advances in the social psychological “obedience to authority” paradigm. Data are 117 audio recordings of Milgram’s original experimental sessions. We discuss methodological features of CA and then show how CA allows for methodological advances in understanding the Milgramesque situation by treating it as a three-party interactional scene, explicating an interactional dilemma for the “Teacher” subjects, and decomposing categorical outcomes (obedience vs. defiance) into their concrete interactional routes. Substantively, we analyze two kinds of resistance to directives enacted by both obedient and defiant participants, who may orient to how continuation would be troublesome primarily for themselves (self-attentive resistance) or for the person receiving shocks (other-attentive resistance). Additionally, we find that defiant participants mobilize two other-attentive practices almost never used by obedient ones: Golden Rule accounts and “letting the Learner decide.” | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 04:32, 21 January 2017
| Hollander-Maynard2016 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hollander-Maynard2016 |
| Author(s) | Matthew M. Hollander, Douglas W. Maynard |
| Title | Do Unto Others . . . ? Methodological Advance and Self- Versus Other-Attentive Resistance in Milgram’s “Obedience” Experiments |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Obedience, Authority, Milgram, Participation, Resistance |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Psychology Quarterly |
| Volume | 79 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 355-375 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0190272516648967 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
We introduce conversation analysis (CA) as a methodological innovation that contributes to studies of the classic Milgram experiment, one allowing for substantive advances in the social psychological “obedience to authority” paradigm. Data are 117 audio recordings of Milgram’s original experimental sessions. We discuss methodological features of CA and then show how CA allows for methodological advances in understanding the Milgramesque situation by treating it as a three-party interactional scene, explicating an interactional dilemma for the “Teacher” subjects, and decomposing categorical outcomes (obedience vs. defiance) into their concrete interactional routes. Substantively, we analyze two kinds of resistance to directives enacted by both obedient and defiant participants, who may orient to how continuation would be troublesome primarily for themselves (self-attentive resistance) or for the person receiving shocks (other-attentive resistance). Additionally, we find that defiant participants mobilize two other-attentive practices almost never used by obedient ones: Golden Rule accounts and “letting the Learner decide.”
Notes
