Obedience: The Milgram Experiment

Procedure:

• Advertised his study as a memory experiment to avoid biasing results

• 40 male participants were greeted by a scientist in a lab coat and a ‘participant’ (who was actually a confederate - an actor following a script)

Roles:

• Roles of teacher (real participant) and learner (confederate) were assigned

• The learner was strapped into a chair and connected to electrodes

Shock Machine Setup:

• The real participant was led to a room with a shock generator (15V to 450V)

• Switches were labelled from ‘slight shock’ to ‘danger - severe shock’

• The teacher had to ask questions and shock the learner for wrong answers, increasing the voltage by 15V each time

Learner’s Reactions:

• As shocks increased, the participant could hear the learner’s protests, and after 300V, there was silence, suggesting severe harm or death

Experimenter Prompts:

If participants hesitated, the scientist would remind them they were responsible and use scripted prompts

• “Please continue”

• “The experiment requires that you continue”

• “It is absolutely essential that you continue”

• “You have no other choice, you must go on”

Milgram’s Findings:

100% of participants shocked up to 300V, 65% of participants continued all the way to 450V. Footage from the experiment shows that the participants were visibly stressed

Milgram’s research suggests:

The majority of people will follow the orders of an authority figure, even if that order will lead to harm

What are the 3 situational variables affecting obedience?

• Proximity

• Location

• Uniform

Situational Variables → Proximity

Milgram increased the distance between the participant and the authority figure by having the authority provide instructions via telephone instead of being in the same room. Obedience rates dropped to 21%. Milgram argued that due to the increased distance, participants were less likely to remain in an ‘agentic state’ and more likely to return to an ‘autonomous state’

Situational Variables → Location

Milgram originally held his experiment at Yale university, when replicated at a run down office block, the obedience rate dropped to 47.5%. As Yale is a high status university, the status of the location increased the scientists legitimacy of authority by making them seem more genuine. The low status location reduced the legitimacy of authority and the level of obedience

Situational Variables → Uniform

Milgram’s original experimenter wore a lab coat. In one variation the researcher in the lab coat received a phone call, made an excuse to leave and was replaced by another confederate dressed in regular clothes. This new experimenter had reduced legitimacy of authority, explaining the drop in obedience rates to 20%

AO3 - Hofling (1966)

Conducted a field experiment in a hospital, 22 real nurses were called by an unfamiliar voice claiming to be Dr Smith, Dr Smith ordered the nurses to give twice the daily dose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient, an obviously dangerous order. Unknown to the nurse it was actually a placebo. 21 out of the 22 nurses completed this order, suggesting even in a situation with ecological validity and a task with mundane realism, people are highly obedient to those they feel have legitimacy of authority

AO3 - Bickman (1974)

Conducted a field experiment in the ecologically valid environment of the streets of New York. An experimenter approached passers by in either a guard uniform, a milkman’s uniform or no uniform and asked them to complete a task. When asked to pay for a parking meter, the obedience rate was 89% when dressed in the guard uniform and only 33% in no uniform. This study supports Milgram’s theory that uniforms are a visible symbol of authority, increasing the legitimacy of authority of the person in the uniform

AO3 - Sheridan and King (1972)

Avoided the possibility of demand characteristics or gender bias by ordering 13 male and 12 female participants to deliver real electric shocks to a puppy by electrifying the puppy’s cage, causing it to run, yelp and howl. Despite many participants showing extreme emotional reactions, such as crying, 54% of the male and 100% of the female participants delivered the maximum shock to the puppies

AO3 - Orne and Holland (1968)

Claim the task was so unusual that the participants figured out they were not actually shocking anyone and acted to demand characteristics, guessing what Milgram’s aims were and acting accordingly

AO3 - Methodological flaws

• The task, using a shock generator, lacks mundane realism, its a task that is not realistic to everyday life

• The study lacks ecological validity as the environment of Yale university was not normal for the participants. People do obey, but its in places and with tasks they are familiar with, like work or school

• Another issue is gender bias, as his original experiment and later variations used entirely male samples, it may be that his findings are not generalisable to women

AO3 - Milgram’s research methods are considered highly unethical

His participants suffered emotional distress during the study, it was difficult for them to withdraw, and they were deceived about the type of study they were taking part in, so they were unable to provide informed consent. However it can be argued that it was necessary for Milgram to conduct his research, and considering the influence of Milgram’s work on our understanding of obedience, from a cost benefit perspective, the temporary harm his participants experienced may have been worth it

AO3 - Milgram’s use of standardised procedures

Such as pre-recordings of the participant responses and clear scripts for the experimenter to follow, led to a high level of control, ensuring each participant had precisely the same experience. Those clear instructions also enabled replications by Milgram and other researchers. The results found in Milgram’s original experiment have been shown by Blass (2012) to be reliable across both 8 additional countries (non US obedience rate 65.9%) and across time periods

AO3 - Alternative explanation

In Milgram’s study 35% resisted the authority figure, this level of resistance can’t be explained by situational factors of agentic state and legitimacy of authority alone, as each participant had precisely the same experience (due to standardised procedures). However, Adorno’s dispositional ‘Authoritarian Personality’ acknowledges that the willingness to obey an authority figure can vary from person to person, offering an explanation as to why there are extreme variations in Milgram’s participants