milgrams obedience studies (1963-1967)

background

who was Stanley Milgram?

• born in 1933, NYC (Jewish family)

• education (PhD from Harvard)

• influences: worked with Solomon Asch

• academic positions: Yale, Harvard, City university of NY

Motivations

• influenced by:

  • the Holocaust: how could ordinary people commit atrocities

  • Hannah Arendts ‘Banality of Evil’

  • desire to make psychological experiments more relevant than line judgements

the studies

study series

• 24 different versions

• over 780 participants

• often mistaken as one study

famous ‘basic’ study (no 5)

• participant = ‘teacher’, confederate = ‘learner’

• learner mentions heart condition, expressed pain, begs to stop

• experimenter gives 4 prods:

  1. please continue

  2. the experiment requires that you continue

  3. it is absolutely essential that you continue

  4. you have no other choice, you must go on

results

• 65% of participants administered the maximum 450 volts

• gradual dropouts from early shock levels, but most continued

methods and ethical issues

ethical concerns

• described as ‘vile’ and comparable to Nazi experimenters

• physical and emotional distress:

  • 14/40 showed nervous laughter

  • 3/40 had seizures

• criticism: participants weren’t truly free to withdraw

debriefing controversies (perry, 2012)

• minimal or delayed debriefing (sometimes 1 year later)

• only last 4 of 23 studies had proper immediate debriefing

• Milgram delayed to avoid participants sharing study details

follow up feedback

feeling	% of participants
extremely upset	64%
somewhat nervous	29%
not bothered at all	10%

replications and variations

replications (1963-1985)

• across the USA, Europe, Middle East, Australia

• 65% compliance was the modal result

variations (key examples)

variation	% obedient
basic study	65
less prestigious setting	48
learner in same room	40
learner touched	30
experimenter absent	22
peer rebels	10
public predictions (before study)	1% guessed obedience

debate and controversy

methodological criticisms

• participants may have suspected deception (recorded sounds, unresponsive learner)

• lab assistant noted 50% doubters →only 1/3 truly obedient?

• criticism: low ecological validity (unrealistic setup)

real-world parallels

• Holfing et al (1996): nurses obeyed dangerous doctor orders

• Sheridan and King (1972): puppy shows; real victims

• Slater et al (2006): virtual victims

theoretical explanations

milgrams interpretation

• agentic state: participant transfers responsibility to authority

• incremental commitment: foot-in-the-door escalation

• self consistency: once they start, harder to stop

social impact theory (Latane, 1981)

obedience = f(strength x immediacy x number)

self categorisation theory (turner, 1999)

• obedience higher when:

  • identification with the authority/scientist is high

  • identification with the victim is low

• know as engaged follower-ship (Haslam and Reicher)

Burger (2009)

prod	obey (%)	disobey (%)
‘please continue’	64	36
‘experiment requires’	46	54
‘it is essential’	10	90
‘you must go on’	0	100

• shows obedience is automatic; resistance increases with perceived coercion

impact and legacy

scientific and cultural influence

• most famous social psychology experiment

• impacted:

  • ethics in research

  • understanding of tyranny, genocide, compliance, management

  • debate across disciplines: theology, law, history, sociology

mixed academic reception

• Wrightsman (1974): criticised lack of theory and rigour

• still remains iconic for revealing obedience in ordinary people

core takeaway

Milgrams studies revealed that ordinary people, under certain conditions, may engage in destructive obedience, not from cruelty, but from a sense of obligation and identification with authority