Book contents
- Arguing, Obeying and Defying
- Arguing, Obeying and Defying
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 The Obedience Experiments
- 2 Re-Evaluating Milgram
- 3 A Rhetorical Perspective
- 4 From Standardised Procedure to Flexible Rhetoric
- 5 From Proximity to Argumentation
- 6 From Passive Agents to Active Rhetoricians
- 7 From a Physical to a Rhetorical Metaphor
- Conclusion
- Appendix Transcription Conventions
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 February 2019
Book contents
- Arguing, Obeying and Defying
- Arguing, Obeying and Defying
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 The Obedience Experiments
- 2 Re-Evaluating Milgram
- 3 A Rhetorical Perspective
- 4 From Standardised Procedure to Flexible Rhetoric
- 5 From Proximity to Argumentation
- 6 From Passive Agents to Active Rhetoricians
- 7 From a Physical to a Rhetorical Metaphor
- Conclusion
- Appendix Transcription Conventions
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Arguing, Obeying and DefyingA Rhetorical Perspective on Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiments, pp. 210 - 228Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00002Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Antaki, C., Condor, S., & Levine, M. (1996). Social identities in talk: Speakers’ own orientations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 473–492. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01109.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C., & Wetherell, M. (1999). Show concessions. Discourse Studies, 1, 7–27. doi: 10.1177/1461445699001001002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. (1977). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. London: Penguin. (Original work published 1963).Google Scholar
Asch, S. E. (1958). The metaphor: A psychological inquiry. In Tagiuri, R. & Petrullo, L. (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 86–94). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Association for Psychological Science. (n.d.). Registered replication reports. Retrieved from: www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/replicationGoogle Scholar
Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). The language of ‘race’ an prejudice: A discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 123–141. doi: 10.1177/0261927X07300075Google Scholar
Augoustinos, M., & Tileagă, C. (2012). Twenty five years of discursive psychology [Special issue]. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 405–496.Google Scholar
Auzoult, L. (2015). Autonomy and resistance to authority. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 74, 49–53. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000149Google Scholar
Barnett, S., & Boyle, C. (Eds.). (2016a). Rhetoric, through everyday things. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, S., & Boyle, C. (2016b). Introduction: Rhetorical ontology, or, how to do things with things. In Barnett, S. & Boyle, C. (Eds.), Rhetoric, through everyday things (pp. 1–14). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s ‘Behavioural study of obedience’. American Psychologist, 19, 421–423. doi: 10.1037/h0040128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165–174. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.165Google Scholar
Baumrind, D. (2013). Is Milgram’s deceptive research ethically acceptable? Theoretical & Applied Ethics, 2(2), 1–18. doi: 10.1353/tha.2013.0012Google Scholar
Baumrind, D. (2015). When the subjects become objects: The lies behind the Milgram legend. Theory & Psychology, 25, 690–696. doi: 10.1177/0959354315592062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Beauvois, J.-L., Courbet, D., & Oberlé, D. (2012). The prescriptive power of the television host. A transportation of Milgram’s obedience paradigm to the context of TV game show. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62, 111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2012.02.001Google Scholar
Bègue, L., Beauvois, J.-L., Courbet, D., Oberlé, D., Lepage, J., & Duke, A. A. (2015). Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. Journal of Personality, 83, 299–306. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12104Google Scholar
Bègue, L., Duke, A., Courbet, D., & Oberlé, D. (2017). Values and indirect noncompliance in a Milgram-like paradigm. Social Influence, 12, 29–40. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2017.1314980Google Scholar
Berkowitz, L. (1999). Evil is more than banal: Situationism and the concept of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 246–253. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_7Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to a rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 79–103. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420150107Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1988). Methodology and scholarship in understanding ideological explanation. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 199–215). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1997). Rhetorical and discursive analysis: How families talk about the royal family. In Hayes, N. (Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology (pp. 39–54). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1999). Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2000). Towards a critique of the critical. Discourse & Society, 11, 291–292. doi: 10.1177/0957926500011003001Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2009). Reflecting on a critical encounter with banal nationalism – Reply to Skey. The Sociological Review, 57, 347–352. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01837.xGoogle Scholar
Billig, M. (2012). Undisciplined beginnings, academic success, and discursive psychology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 413–424. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02086.xGoogle Scholar
Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Billig, M., with Locke, A. (2008). The hidden routes of antiquarian psychology: Abigail Locke in conversation with Michael Billig. Social Psychological Review, 10(1), 20–24.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60, 398–413. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398Google Scholar
Blass, T. (1992). The social psychology of Stanley Milgram. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 277–329. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60286-5Google Scholar
Blass, T. (1993). Psychological perspectives on the perpetrators of the Holocaust: The role of situational pressures, personal dispositions, and their interactions. Holocaust & Genocide Studies, 7, 30–50. doi: 10.1093/hgs/7.1.30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blass, T. (1995). Right-wing authoritarianism and role as predictors of attributions about obedience to authority. Personality & Individual Differences, 19, 99–100. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(95)00004-PGoogle Scholar
Blass, T. (1996a). Attribution of responsibility and trust in the Milgram obedience experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1529–1535. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00084.xGoogle Scholar
Blass, T. (1996b). The Milgram obedience experiment: Support for a cognitive view of defensive attribution. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 407–410. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1996.9714020Google Scholar
Blass, T. (1998). The roots of Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments and their relevance to the Holocaust. Analyse & Kritik, 20, 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 955–978. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, T. (Ed.). (2000). Obedience to authority: Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Blass, T. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of studies of obedience using the Milgram paradigm: A review. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 196–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00417.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bocchiaro, P., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2010). Defying unjust authority: An exploratory study. Current Psychology, 29, 155–170. doi: 10.1007/s12144-010-9080-zGoogle Scholar
Bocchiaro, P., Zimbardo, P. G., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2012). To defy or not to defy: An experimental study of the dynamics of disobedience and whistle-blowing. Social Influence, 7, 35–50. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2011.648421Google Scholar
Brannigan, A. (2004). The rise and fall of experimental social psychology: The use and misuse of the experimental method. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brannigan, A. (2013). Beyond the banality of evil: Criminology and genocide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory & Psychology, 25, 551–563. doi: 10.1177/0959354315604408Google Scholar
Brannigan, A., & Perry, G. (2016). Milgram, genocide and bureaucracy: A post-Weberian perspective. State Crime Journal, 5, 287–305. doi: 10.13169/statecrime.5.2.0287Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle Scholar
Brice, E., & Gibson, S. (forthcoming). From ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ to ‘not that I’ve got anything to hide’: A critical discursive analysis of privacy.Google Scholar
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi: 10.1037/a0010932Google Scholar
Burger, J. (2017). Obedience. In Harkins, S., Williams, K. D., & Burger, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 129-145). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199859870.013.5Google Scholar
Burger, J. M., Girgis, Z. M., & Manning, C. C. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an analysis of participants’ comments. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 460–466. doi: 10.1177/1948550610397632Google Scholar
Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caspar, E. A., Christensen, J. F., Cleeremans, A., & Haggard, P. (2016). Coercion changes the sense of agency in the human brain. Current Biology, 26, 585–592. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.067Google Scholar
Cheetham, M., Pedroni, A. F., Antley, A., Slater, M., & Jäncke, L. (2009). Virtual Milgram: Empathic concern or personal distress? Evidence from functional MRI and dispositional measures. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.029.2009Google Scholar
Cherry, F. (1995). The ‘stubborn particulars’ of social psychology: Essays on the research process. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015Google Scholar
Colburn, T. R., & Shute, G. M. (2008). Metaphor in computer science. Journal of Applied Logic, 6, 526–533. doi: 10.1016/j.jal.2008.09.005Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condor, S. (2003). ‘The least doubtful promise for the future’? The short history of Tajfel’s ‘sociopsychological’ approach to laboratory experimentation. In László, J. & Wagner, W. (Eds.), Theories and controversies in societal psychology (pp. 153–179). Budapest: New Mandate.Google Scholar
Coulter, J. (1999). Discourse and mind. Human Studies, 22, 163–181. doi: 10.1023/A:1005484316659Google Scholar
Crandall, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002Google Scholar
Cresswell, J. (2012). Including social discourses and experience in research on refugees, race, and ethnicity. Discourse & Society, 23, 553–575. doi: 10.1177/0957926512455885Google Scholar
Dambrun, M., & Vatiné, E. (2010). Reopening the study of extreme behaviors: Obedience to authority within an immersive video environment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 760–773. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, K. (1990). Generative metaphor and the history of psychological discourse. In Leary, D. E., Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 331–356). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind: How psychology found its language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M. (1995). Constructive and destructive obedience: A taxonomy of principal-agent relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 125–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01338.xGoogle Scholar
Davis, D., & Ballif, M. (2014). Guest editors’ introduction: Pushing the limits of the anthropos. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 47, 346–353. doi: 10.5325/philrhet.47.4.0346Google Scholar
Davis, S., & Perry, G. (Producers). (2008). Beyond the shock machine [Radio documentary]. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/archived/radioeye/2008-10-11/3183352Google Scholar
Diani, G. (2004). The discourse functions of I don’t know in English conversation. In Aijmer, K. & Stenström, A.-B. (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (pp. 157–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Di Masso, A., & Dixon, J. (2015). More than words: Place, discourse and the struggle over public space in Barcelona. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12, 45–60. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2014.958387Google Scholar
Doliński, D., & Grzyb, T. (2016). One serious shock versus gradated series of shocks: Does ‘multiple feet-in-the-door’ explain obedience in Milgram studies? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38, 276–283. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2016.1214836Google Scholar
Doliński, D., Grzyb, T., Folwarczny, M., Grzybala, P., Krzyszycha, K., Martynowska, K., & Trojanowski, J. (2017). Would you deliver an electric shock in 2015? Obedience in the experimental paradigm developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 years following the original studies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 927–933. doi: 10.1177/1948550617693060Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Is confusion a state of mind? In te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 161–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology, 1, 515–542. doi: 10.1177/0959354391014007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. (1993). But what do children really think?: Discourse analysis and conceptual content in children’s talk. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 207–225.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5, 271–291. doi: 10.1177/1354067X9953001Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2005). Discursive psychology. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 257–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse, cognition and social practices: The rich surface of language and social interaction. Discourse Studies, 8, 41–49. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059551Google Scholar
Edwards, D., Ashmore, M., & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25–49. doi: 10.1177/095269519500800202Google Scholar
Edwards, D., Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2009). Psychology, sociology and interaction: Disciplinary allegiance or analytic quality? – A response to Housley and Fitzgerald. Qualitative Research, 9, 119–128. doi: 10.1177/1468794108095078Google Scholar
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23–41. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23Google Scholar
Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 967–976. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.30.10.967Google Scholar
Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64, 32–36. doi: 10.1037/a0014473Google Scholar
Elms, A. C., & Milgram, S. (1966). Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance toward authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 282–289.Google Scholar
Ent, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Individual differences in guilt proneness affect how people respond to moral tradeoffs between harm avoidance and obedience to authority. Personality & Individual Differences, 74, 231–234. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.035Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2016). Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 68–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009Google Scholar
Faye, C. (2012). American social psychology: Examining the contours of the 1970s crisis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43, 514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.010Google Scholar
Fenigstein, A. (2015). Milgram’s shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: A contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust. Theory & Psychology, 25, 581–598. doi: 10.1177/0959354315601904Google Scholar
Fennis, B. M., & Aarts, H. (2012). Revisiting the agentic shift: Weakening personal control increases susceptibility to social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 824–831. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1887Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483. doi: 10.1126/science.1103788Google Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E., & Schrock, J. C. (2002). Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727–747. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9Google Scholar
Freedman, J. L. (1969). Role playing: Psychology by consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 107–114. doi: 10.1037/h0028067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foor-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 4, 195–202. doi: 10.1037/h0023552Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11, 225–250.Google Scholar
Geller, D. M. (1978). Involvement in role-playing simulations: A demonstration with studies on obedience. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 219–235. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.219Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 309–320.Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56, 803–813. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.56.10.803Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.).(2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2012a). ‘I’m not a war monger but…’: Discourse analysis and social psychological peace research. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 159–173.Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2012b). History in action: The construction of historical analogies in televised debates concerning the Iraq War. Papers on Social Representations, 21, 13.1–13.35.Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2013a). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.xGoogle Scholar
Gibson, S. (2013b). ‘The last possible resort’: A forgotten prod and the in situ standardization of Stanley Milgram’s voice-feedback condition. History of Psychology, 16, 177–194. doi: 10.1037/a0032430Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2014). Discourse, defiance, and rationality: ‘Knowledge work’ in the ‘obedience’ experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 424–438. doi: 10.1111/josi.12069Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2015b). From representation to representing: On social representations and discursive-rhetorical psychology. In Sammut, G., Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2017). Developing psychology’s archival sensibilities: Revisiting Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. Qualitative Psychology, 4, 73–89. doi: 10.1037/qup0000040Google Scholar
Gibson, S. (2018). Obedience without orders: Expanding social psychology’s conception of obedience. British Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12272Google Scholar
Gibson, S., Blenkinsopp, G., Johnstone, E., & Marshall, A. (2018). Just following orders? The rhetorical invocation of ‘obedience’ in Stanley Milgram’s post-experiment interviews. European Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2351Google Scholar
Gibson, S., & Smart, C. (2017). Social influence. In Gough, B. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of critical social psychology (pp. 291–318). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Gilbert, C. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. J. (1981). Another look at the Milgram obedience studies: The role of the gradated series of shocks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 690–695. doi: 10.1177/014616728174028Google Scholar
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571. doi: 10.1177/1745691612457576Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
Griffin, C. (2012). Looking beyond the text: Some reflections on the challenges of engaging with feminist conversation analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 9, 298–302. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2011.635466Google Scholar
Griggs, R. A. (2017). Milgram’s obedience study: A contentious classic reinterpreted. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 32–37. doi: 10.1177/0098628316677644Google Scholar
Griggs, R. A., & III Whitehead, G. I. (2015a). Coverage of Milgram’s obedience experiments in social psychology textbooks: Where have all the criticisms gone? Teaching of Psychology, 42, 315–322. doi: 10.1177/0098628315603065Google Scholar
Griggs, R. A., & III Whitehead, G. I. (2015b). Coverage of recent criticisms of Milgram’s obedience experiments in introductory social psychology textbooks. Theory & Psychology, 25, 564–580. doi: 10.1177/0959354315601231Google Scholar
Grzyb, T., & Doliński, D. (2017). Perpetrator as a potential victim. Does threatened retaliation from the victim reduce obedience towards authority? Psychologica Belgica, 57, 123–132. doi: 10.5334/pb.397Google Scholar
Hales, A. H. (2016). Does the conclusion follow from the evidence? Recommendations for improving research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 39–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.011Google Scholar
Harré, R., & Secord, P. F. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 9(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093927Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622. doi: 10.1177/0146167206298570Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2017). 50 years of ‘obedience to authority’: From blind conformity to engaged followership. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 59–78. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2018). 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. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 292–300. doi: , 10.1111/bjso.12247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2014). Nothing by mere authority: Evidence that in an experimental analogue of the Milgram paradigm participants are motivated not by orders but by appeals to authority. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 473–488. doi: 10.1111/josi.12072Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Millard, K. (2015a). Shock treatment: Using immersive digital realism to restage and re-examine Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’ research. PLoS ONE, 10(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109015Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Millard, K., & McDonald, R. (2015b). ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 55–83. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12074Google Scholar
Heath, C. (1984). Talk and recipiency: Sequential organization in speech and body movement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 247–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helm, C., & Morelli, M. (1979). Stanley Milgram and the obedience experiment: Authority, legitimacy, and human action. Political Theory, 7, 321–345.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. (2004). Crying: Notes on description, transcription, and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37, 251–290. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3703_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Threats: Power, family mealtimes, and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 99–120. doi: 10.1348/014466610X500791Google Scholar
Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2012). Crying and crying responses. In Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 195–211). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., & Jonas, K. (Eds.). (2015). An introduction to social psychology (6th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E., Myerberg, N. R., & Morawski, J. (2015). Acting otherwise: Resistance, agency, and subjectivities in Milgram’s studies of obedience. Theory & Psychology, 25, 670–689. doi: 10.1177/0959354315608705Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. R., Cochran, E. L., & Nead, J. M. (1990). Cognitive metaphors in experimental psychology. In Leary, D. E., Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 173–229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hollander, M. M. (2015). The repertoire of resistance: Non-compliance with directives in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 425–444. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12099Google Scholar
Hollander, M. M., & Maynard, D. W. (2016). Do unto others…? Methodological advance and self- versus other-attentive resistance in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79, 355–375. doi: 10.1177/0190272516648967Google Scholar
Hollander, M. M., & Turowetz, J. (2017). Normalizing trust: Participants’ immediately post-hoc explanations of behaviour in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 655–674. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12206Google Scholar
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 219–245. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Yes, but…: Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 16, 222–239. doi: 10.1177/0261927X970162006Google Scholar
Hook, D. (2007). Foucault, psychology and the analytics of power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2008). Motives and social organization: Sociological amnesia, psychological description and the analysis of accounts. Qualitative Research, 8, 237–256. doi: 10.1177/1468794107087483Google Scholar
Housley, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2009). Beyond the discursive: The case of social organization – a reply to Edwards, Hepburn and Potter. Qualitative Research, 9, 129–133. doi: 10.1177/1468794108095076Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Izenberg, G. (2016). Identity: The necessity of a modern idea. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcription symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). The estrangement of social constructionism and experimental social psychology: History of the rift and prospects for reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 169–187. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_1Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. E. (1996). The Stanley Milgram Papers: A case study on appraisal of and access to confidential data files. American Archivist, 59, 288–297. doi: 10.17723/aarc.59.3.k3245057x1902078Google Scholar
Kaposi, D. (2017). The resistance experiments: Morality, authority and obedience in Stanley Milgram’s account. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 47, 382–401. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12137Google Scholar
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2017). Social psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, H. (1967). The price of obedience and the price of knowledge. American Psychologist, 22, 321–322. doi: 10.1037/h0037664Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 1–11. doi: 10.1037/h0024072Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 29, 696–702. doi: 10.1037/h0036636Google Scholar
Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., de Saldanha da Gama, P. A. M., Miller, S., Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 572–584. doi: 10.1177/1745691612463704Google Scholar
Kroger, R. O., & Wood, L. A. (1998). The turn to discourse in social psychology. Canadian Psychology, 39, 266–279. doi: 10.1037/h0086818Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lang, J. (2014). Against obedience: Hannah Arendt’s overlooked challenge to social-psychological explanations of mass atrocity. Theory & Psychology, 24, 649–667. doi: 10.1177/0959354314542368Google Scholar
Lankford, A. (2009). Promoting aggression and violence at Abu Ghraib: The U.S. military’s transformation of ordinary people into torturers. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 14, 388–395. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.007Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In Bijker, W. E. & Law, J. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leary, D. E. (Ed.). (1990a). Metaphors in the history of psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leary, D. E. (1990b). Psyche’s muse: The role of metaphor in the history of psychology. In Leary, D. E. (Ed.), Metaphors in the history of psychology (pp. 1–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lebel, E. P., Berger, D., Campbell, L., & Loving, T. J. (2017). Falsifiability is not optional. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 254–261. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000106Google Scholar
Lebel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2013). PsychDisclosure.org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 424–432. doi: 10.1177/1745691613491437Google Scholar
Lunt, P. (2009). Stanley Milgram: Understanding obedience and its implications. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Lutsky, N. (1995). When is ‘obedience’ obedience? Conceptual and historical commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 55–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01334.xGoogle Scholar
Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Mandel, D. R. (1998). The obedience alibi: Milgram’s account of the Holocaust reconsidered. Analyse & Kritik, 20, 74–94.Google Scholar
Mantell, D. M. (1971). The potential for violence in Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 27, 101–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1971.tb00680.xGoogle Scholar
Mantell, D. M., & Panzarella, R. (1976). Obedience and responsibility. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 15, 239–245. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1976.tb00030.xGoogle Scholar
Masters, K. S. (2009). Milgram, stress research, and the institutional review board. American Psychologist, 64, 621–622. doi: 10.1037/a0017110Google Scholar
Mastroianni, G. R. (2015). Obedience in perspective: Psychology and the Holocaust. Theory & Psychology, 25, 657–669. doi: 10.1177/0959354315608963Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does ‘failure to replicate’ really mean? American Psychologist, 70, 487–498. doi: 10.1037/a0039400Google Scholar
Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. C. (2000). Toward a sociology of social scientific knowledge: Survey research and ethnomethodology’s asymmetric alternates. Social Studies of Science, 30, 323–370. doi: 10.1177/030631200030003001Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1973). The yin and yang of progress in social psychology: Seven koan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 446–456.Google Scholar
McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2008). Social psychology and discourse. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1986). Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use psychological administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 311–324. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420160402Google Scholar
Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1987). Administrative obedience as a social phenomenon. In Doise, W. & Moscovici, S. (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 183–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meeus, W. H. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 155–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01339.xGoogle Scholar
Mermillod, M., Marchand, V., Lepage, J., Bègue, L., & Dambrun, M. (2015). Destructive obedience without pressure: Beyond the limits of the agentic state. Social Psychology, 46, 345–351. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000251Google Scholar
Michael, M. (1996). Constructing identities: the social, the nonhuman and change. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. doi: 10.1037/h0040525Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1964a). Group pressure and action against a person. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 69, 137–143. doi: 10.1037/h0047759Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1964b). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 848–852. doi: 10.1037/h0044954Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1965a). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76. doi: 10.1177/001872676501800105Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1965b). Liberating effects of group pressure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1, 127–134. doi: 10.1037/h0021650Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (Producer). (1965c). Obedience [DVD]. University Park, PA: Penn State Media Sales.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1967). Obedience to criminal orders: The compulsion to do evil. Patterns of Prejudice, 1, 3–7. doi: 10.1080/0031322X.1967.9968711Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1972). Interpreting obedience: Error and evidence. A reply to Orne and Holland. In Miller, A. G. (Ed.), The social psychology of psychological research (pp. 138–154). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1977). Subject reaction: The neglected factor in the ethics of experimentation. Hastings Center Report, 7(5), 19–23. doi: 10.2307/3560719Google Scholar
Milgram, S. (1983). Reflections on Morelli’s ‘dilemma of obedience’. Metaphilosophy, 14, 190–194.Google Scholar
Millard, K. (2014). Revisioning obedience: Exploring the role of Milgram’s skills as a filmmaker in bringing his shocking narrative to life. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 439–455. doi: 10.1111/josi.12070Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (Ed.). (1972a). The social psychology of psychological research. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (1972b). Role playing: An alternative to deception? A review of the evidence. American Psychologist, 27, 623–636. doi: 10.1037/h0033257Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (2004). What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust?: Generalizing from the social psychology laboratory. In Miller, A. G. (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–239). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on ‘Replicating Milgram’ (Burger, 2009). American Psychologist, 64, 20–27. doi: 10.1037/a0014407Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (2013). Baumrind’s reflections on her landmark ethical analysis of Milgram’s obedience experiments (1964): An appraisal of her current views. Theoretical & Applied Ethics, 2(2), 19–44. doi: 10.1353/tha.2013.0014Google Scholar
Miller, A. G. (2016). Why are the Milgram obedience experiments still so extraordinarily famous – and controversial? In Miller, A. G. (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 185–223). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Miller, A. G., Collins, B. E., & Brief, D. E. (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 1–210.Google Scholar
Mixon, D. (1971). Behaviour analysis treating subjects as actors rather than organisms. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 1, 19–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1971.tb00164.xGoogle Scholar
Mixon, D. (1972). Instead of deception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2, 145–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.1972.tb00309.xGoogle Scholar
Mixon, D. (1976). Studying feignable behaviour. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7, 89–104.Google Scholar
Mixon, D. (1977). Why pretend to deceive? Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 647–653. doi: 10.1177/014616727700300418Google Scholar
Mixon, D. (1989). Obedience and civilization: Authorized crime and the normality of evil. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
Modigliani, A., & Rochat, F. (1995). The role of interaction sequences and the timing of resistance in shaping obedience and defiance to authority. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 107–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01337.xGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1972). Society and theory in social psychology. In Israel, J. & Tajfel, H. (Eds.), The context of social psychology. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (2008). Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Cambridge: Polity. (Original work published 1961).Google Scholar
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Navarick, D. J. (2009). Reviving the Milgram obedience paradigm in the era of informed consent. The Psychological Record, 59, 155–170.Google Scholar
Navarick, D. J., & Bellone, J. A. (2010). Time of semester as a factor in participants’ obedience to instructions to perform an aversive task. The Psychological Record, 60, 101–114.Google Scholar
Nicholson, I. (2011). ‘Torture at Yale’: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the ‘rehabilitation’ of Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’. Theory & Psychology, 21, 737–761. doi: 10.1177/0959354311420199Google Scholar
Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ laboratory. Theory & Psychology, 25, 639–656. doi: 10.1177/0959354315605393Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening Scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Confirmation checks: A discourse analytic reanalysis. Japanese Language and Literature, 39, 383–412. doi: 10.2307/30038905Google Scholar
O’Leary, C. J., Willis, F. N., & Tomich, E. (1970). Conformity under deceptive and non-deceptive techniques. Sociological Quarterly, 11, 87–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1970.tb02077.xGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, M. (2015). Designing obedience in the lab: Milgram’s shock simulator and human factors engineering. Theory & Psychology, 25, 599–621. doi: 10.1177/0959354315605392Google Scholar
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783. doi: 10.1037/h0043424Google Scholar
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. C. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282–293.Google Scholar
Ortony, A. (Ed.). (1979). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1983). Nineteen eighty-four. In The Penguin complete novels of George Orwell. London: Penguin. (Original work published 1949).Google Scholar
Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (1999). Do the social sciences create phenomena? The example of public opinion research. British Journal of Sociology, 50, 367–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.1999.00367.xGoogle Scholar
Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram’s obedience experiments: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 301–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00080.xGoogle Scholar
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. doi: 10.1177/1745691612465253Google Scholar
Patten, S. C. (1977a). The case that Milgram makes. Philosophical Review, 86, 350–364. doi: 10.2307/2183787Google Scholar
Perry, G. (2012). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. London: Scribe.Google Scholar
Perry, G. (2013). Deception and illusion in Milgram’s accounts of the obedience experiments. Theoretical & Applied Ethics, 2(2), 79–92. doi: 10.1353/tha.2013.0018Google Scholar
Perry, G. (2015). Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments. Theory & Psychology, 25, 622–638. doi: 10.1177/0959354315604235Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–21. doi: 10.1093/applin/8.1.3Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulation: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–229.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1998). Discursive social psychology: From attitudes to evaluative practices. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 233–266. doi: 10.1080/14792779843000090Google Scholar
Potter, J. (2006). Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies, 8, 131–140. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059562Google Scholar
Potter, J. (2012). How to study experience. Discourse & Society, 23, 576–588. doi: 10.1177/0957926512455884Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (1999). Social representations and discursive psychology: From cognition to action. Culture & Psychology, 5, 447–458. doi: 10.1177/1354067X9954004Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In Robinson, W. P., & Giles, H. (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 103–118). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2003). Rethinking cognition: On Coulter on discourse and mind. Human Studies, 26, 165–181. doi: 10.1023/A:1024008104438Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2008). Discursive constructionism. In Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 275–293). New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2010). Putting aspiration into words: ‘Laugh particles’, managing descriptive trouble and modulating action. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1543–1555. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1988). Accomplishing attitudes: Fact and evaluation in racist discourse. Text, 8, 51–68.Google Scholar
Powers, P. C., & Geen, R. G. (1972). Effects of the behavior and the perceived arousal of a model on instrumental aggression. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 23, 175–183. doi: 10.1037/h0033037Google Scholar
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor – A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, A. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. (1997). Laying the ground for a common critical psychology. In Ibáñez, T. & ĺñiguez, L. (Eds.), Critical social psychology (pp. 83–94). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D. (2014). In praise of activism: Rethinking the psychology of obedience and conformity. In Antaki, C. & Condor, S. (Eds.), Rhetoric, ideology and social psychology: Essays in honour of Michael Billig (pp. 94–108). Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1–40. doi: 10.1348/014466605X48998Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram ‘obedience’ studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 163–169. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02015.xGoogle Scholar
Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Smith, J. R. (2012). Working towards the experimenter: Reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 315–324. doi: 10.1177/1745691612448482Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D., Hopkins, N., & Condor, S. (1997). The lost nation of psychology. In Barfoot, C. C. (Ed.), Beyond Pug’s tour: National and ethnic stereotyping in theory and literary practice (pp. 53–84). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Richards, G. (1989). On psychological language and the physiomorphic basis of human nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richards, G. (2010). Putting psychology in its place: Critical historical perspectives (3rd ed.). Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rickert, T. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Rijsman, J., & Stroebe, W. (1989). The two social psychologies or whatever happened to the crisis? European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 339–344. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420190502Google Scholar
Ring, K. (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some frivolous values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 113–123.Google Scholar
Ring, K., Wallston, K., & Corey, M. (1970). Mode of debriefing as a factor affecting subjective reaction to a Milgram-type obedience experiment: An ethical inquiry. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1, 67–88.Google Scholar
Riva, P., Williams, K. D., Torstrick, A. M., & Montali, L. (2014). Orders to shoot (a camera): Effects of ostracism on obedience. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 208–216. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2014.883354Google Scholar
Rivers, N. A. (2015). Deep ambivalence and wild objects: Toward a strange environmental rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 45, 420–440. doi: 10.1080/02773945.2015.1086491Google Scholar
Rochat, F., & Blass, T. (2014). Milgram’s unpublished obedience variation and its historical relevance. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 456–472. doi: 10.1111/josi.12071Google Scholar
Rochat, F., & Modigliani, A. (1997). Authority: Obedience, defiance, and identification in experimental and historical contexts. In Gold, M. & Douvan, E., A new outline of social psychology (pp. 235–246). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1985). The psychological complex: Psychology, politics and society in England, 1869–1939. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Russell, N. J. C. (2009). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Towards an understanding of their relevance in explaining aspects of the Nazi Holocaust. [Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington]. Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1091Google Scholar
Russell, N. J. C. (2011). Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 140–162. doi: 10.1348/014466610X492205Google Scholar
Russell, N. J. C. (2014a). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority ‘relationship’ condition: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194–214. doi: 10.3390/socsci3020194Google Scholar
Russell, N. J. C. (2014b). The emergence of Milgram’s bureaucratic machine. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 409–423. doi: 10.1111/josi.12068Google Scholar
Russell, N. J. C., & Gregory, R. J. (2011). Spinning an organizational ‘web of obligation’? Moral choice in Stanley Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments. The American Journal of Public Administration, 41, 495–518. doi: 10.1177/0275074010384129Google Scholar
Russell, N. J. C., & Gregory, R. J. (2015). The Milgram-Holocaust linkage: Challenging the present consensus. State Crime Journal, 4, 128–153. doi: 10.13169/statecrime.4.2.0128Google Scholar
Sabini, J. P., & Silver, M. (1980). Destroying the innocent with a clear conscience: A sociopsychology of the Holocaust. In Dimsdale, J. E. (Ed.), Survivors, victims, and perpetrators: Essays on the Nazi Holocaust (pp. 329–358). New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010Google Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In Sudnow, D. (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 75–119). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language, 61, 640–667. doi: 10.2307/414389Google Scholar
Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1977). A behavioural study of obedience in children. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 35, 530–536. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.35.7.530Google Scholar
Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 267–269.Google Scholar
Sheridan, C. L., & King, R. G. (1972). Obedience to authority with an authentic victim. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7, 165–166.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1977). Crisis in social psychology: Some remarks towards breaking through the crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 368–382. doi: 10.1177/014616727700300305Google Scholar
Simons, H. W. (Ed.). (1990). The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., . . . Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience experiments. PLoS ONE, 1(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000039Google Scholar
Smith, M. B. (1976). Some perspectives on ethical/political issues in social science research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 445–453. doi: 10.1177/014616727600200418Google Scholar
Stark, L. (2010). The science of ethics: Deception, the resilient self, and the APA Code of Ethics, 1966–1973. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 46, 337–370. doi: 10.1002/jhbs.20468Google Scholar
Stokoe, E., Hepburn, A., & Antaki, C. (2012). Beware the ‘Loughborough school’ of social psychology? Interaction and the politics of intervention. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 486–496. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02088.xGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In Israel, J. & Tajfel, H. (Eds.), The context of social psychology (pp. 69–119). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.Google Scholar
te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tileagă, E., & Stokoe, C. (Eds.). (2016). Discursive psychology: Classic and contemporary issues. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Toerien, M., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Emotional labour in action: Navigating multiple involvements in the beauty salon. Sociology, 41, 645–662. doi: 10.1177/0038038507078918Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don't know. Text, 11, 607–622. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Twenge, J. M. (2009). Change over time in obedience: The jury’s still out, but it might be decreasing. American Psychologist, 64, 28–31. doi: 10.1037/a0014475Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse: An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (2012). A note on epistemics and discourse analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 478–485. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02044.xGoogle Scholar
Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and emotion: A new social science understanding. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2014). On the accountability of changing bodies: Using discursive psychology to examine embodied identities in different research settings. Qualitative Psychology, 1, 144–162. doi: 10.1037/qup0000012Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2003). Attitudes and evaluative practices: Category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 513–531. doi: 10.1348/014466603322595257Google Scholar
Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In Willig, C. & Stainton-Rogers, W. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73–90). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wiltermuth, S. (2012). Synchrony and destructive obedience. Social Influence, 7, 78–89. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2012.658653Google Scholar
Wooffitt, R. (1992). Telling tales of the unexpected: The organization of factual discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Zeigler-Hill, V., Southard, A. C., Archer, L. M., & Donohoe, P. L. (2013). Neuroticism and negative affect influence the reluctance to engage in destructive obedience in the Milgram paradigm. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 161–174. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2012.713041Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P. G. (1999). Experimental social psychology: Behaviorism with minds and matters. In Rodrigues, A. & Levine, R. V. (Eds.), Reflections on 100 years of experimental social psychology (pp. 135–157). New York: Basic.Google Scholar