Research Into Obedience - Milgram

Context of Milgram’s study

Milgram’s original study aimed to see if participants would obey an authority figure when asked to behave in an inhumane manner. This was done in the context of Adolf Eichmann (Nazi responsible for the mass deportation of jews to concentration camps) claiming he had done those evil acts because he was simply following orders.

Obedience

Occurs when an individual acts in response to an order from an authority figure (eg. teacher says to sit and students sit

Milgram’s Original Procedure - Set Up

400 male participants gathered by volunteer sampling (advertisements in local area around YALE where study was carried out - paid £4.50 for participation even if withdrew). Told it was a study investigating punishment’s effect on learning, this was deception as study actually was on obedience. Pts placed in pairs with a confederate called Mr Wallace and they met an experimenter in a white lab coat. Pair drew fixed lots so confederate was named the learner and participant was named the teacher.

Milgram’s Original Procedure

The teacher was told to deliver shocks that escalated from 15V to 450V in intervals of 15V to the learner every time they answered wrong to a memory test. The learner was in another room and was not actually shocked but the teacher heard pre-recorded protests that escalated in intensity with the increase in voltage for every shock up to 300V. After this the learner was silent in response to shocks. If the teacher hesitated they were encouraged by the experimenter, who was in the room with the teacher, to deliver the shocks in a cold and robotic manner (EG. “It is absolutely essential that you continue”.

Milgram’s Original Procedure - Findings

Contrary to the expectations of a group of psychology students that only 1% of participants would deliver shocks, 100% of participants delivered shocks up to 300V. Only 65% continued to deliver shocks up to 450V.

Milgram’s Variations

Milgram carried out some variations of his original study in order to ascertain the effects of different factors on obedience. These factors were: Proximity, Location and Uniform.

Proximity Variations (to victim and touch)

Proximity to victim - teacher and learner were seated in the same room = 40% obedience rate

Touch proximity - Teacher had to force the learner’s hands onto the shock plate= 30% obedience rate

—> Proximity affects an individual’s awareness of the consequences for obedience

Location Variations

A less legitimate + respectable location was used to host the study (a run down office block in Connecticut) = 47.5% obedience

—> Location affects the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure + this can affect obedience

Uniform Variations

Experimenter was called away by a phone call at the start of the experiment and replaced by a confederate wearing civilian clothes = 20% obedience rate

—> Uniform can affect the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure + this can affect obedience

Milgram’s Research (all) - Con - Ethical issues

One weakness of Milgram’s research is that is has ethical issues. The Researcher used deception by informing participants they were taking part in a study on the effects of punishment on learning that they were administering real electric shocks to the learner. Neither of these statements were true and therefore Milgram could not acquire informed consent from his participants to take part in the study. Moreover, it is possible Milgram’s research failed to protect his participants from psychological harm as he recorded that participants often trembled, stuttered and sweated in the procedure (signs of psychological distress). Darley even suggested that the experiences of administering shocks (even if not real) may have psychologically changed the participants so they were more likely to repeat these actions in the future. Therefore, his research does not follow ethical guidelines and consequently should not have been conducted.

Milgram’s Research (all) - Con - Internal Validity

One weakness of Milgram’s research (original and variations) is that psychologists have suggested that his research has a low internal validity. Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s procedures (even more so in his variations) for it being possible that participants had realised they were administering fake shocks. They claimed this was possible due to participants in psychological experiments having learned to distrust experimenters because they are aware the true aims of experiments may be disguised. Moreover, for his variations the psychologists suggested that the extra manipulations of variables led to more demand characteristics which made it easier for participants to realise the true aims of the experiment. For example, in the uniform variation the replacement of a uniformed researcher with a member of the public was recognised as absurd and a potential revelation of the study aims by Milgram himself. Therefore, Milgram’s research lacks internal validity as participants acted unnaturally whilst delivering shocks as they had realised they were harmless. They may have chosen to act in a way that would either please (please-U) or displease (screw-U) the researcher.

Milgram’s Research (original) - Pro - Nurse

One strength of Milgram’s research is that it has supporting evidence that was not a laboratory experiment, suggesting his findings have a high ecological validity. Holfling et al. conducted an experiment using 22 staff nurses in a psychiatric hospital as participants. The nurses received a phone call from an unknown doctor and were asked to administer a dose of Astrofen to a particular patient. They knew the dose they were asked to administer (20mg) was above the maximum suggested daily dosage (10mg). Unknown to the nurses the drug had been replaced by a harmless placebo. 21 out of the 22 nurses were found to obey the doctor. Therefore, This suggests that Milgram’s findings can be generalised beyond his research setting and to real life.

Milgram’s Variations - Pro - Uniform

One strength of Milgram’s conclusions about obedience is that there is other research to support the claim that uniform can affect obedience. Bickman asked three confederates to give orders to pedestrians in New York. One confederate was dressed as a security guard, another as a milkman and one was wearing civilian clothes. Bickman found that passers by were most likely to obey the confederate dressed as the security guard and most likely to obey the confederate dressed in civilian clothes. Therefore this suggests that in real life settings individuals are more likely to obey individuals in uniform as it suggests legitimacy and authority, supporting Milgram’s conclusions.

Explanations of Conformity

There are two key explanations of conformity: The Agentic State and the Legitimacy of Authority.

The Agentic State - Milgram

This explanation suggests that when an individual revives an order form an authority figure they undergo an agentic shift from an autonomous state to an agentic state.

Agentic state

Where an individuals has no sense of personal responsibility for their actions / does not see themself as responsible for their own actions.

Autonomous State

When an individual sees themself as being responsible for their own actions / has a sense of personal responsibility for their actions.

Legitimacy of Authority - Milgram

This explanation suggests that an agentic shift can only occur when an individual perceives an authority figure to me legitimate. An authority figure’s legitimacy is determined by their position in the social hierarchy (must be above individual). Legitimate authority figures also often have the power to punish and from childhood individuals are taught to accept the orders of legitimate authority figures.

Agentic State - Pro - Milgram

One strength of the agentic state explanation is that Milgram used it to explain his findings for his obedience study. In the interviews Milgram conducted with his participants after the study he asked them why they continued to administer electric shocks. The participants answered “I wouldn’t have done it by myself, I was just doing what I was told.”. This suggests the participants in Milgram’s study were in an agentic state, and therefore this acts as supporting evidence for this explanation.

Agentic State - Con - Possibilities

One weakness of the agentic state explanation is that Milgram’s findings could be explained by other possibilities. Milgram admitted this himself. For example, one possibility to explain the results of the study is cruelty (as Milgram detected this in his participants) since the situation allowed for the participants to express their sadistic impulses. The Stanford Prison experiment supports this explanation as participants named ‘guards’ in the experiment inflicted extreme cruelty onto the ‘prisoner’ participants, despite no authority figure encouraging them to do so. Therefore, this suggests Milgram’s findings can simply be explained by the unpleasant aspects of the human personality.

Legitimacy of Authority - Pro - Supporting Research

One strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that there is supporting evidence. Tarnow studied data from a review of all serious US aircraft incidents between 1978 and 1990 and found evidence of excessive dependence on the authority figure of the captain. For example, one Second Officer claimed he assumed the captain “must know what he is doing” because of his position as a legitimate authority figure and therefore took no action to question the risk action he recognised the captain was taking. Therefore, this suggests the Second Officer felt unwilling to question the legitimate authority of the Captain, which explains his obedience using the legitimacy of authority explanation.