Milgram Case Study

background

Milgram wanted to research destructive obedience to understand how 11 million ppl were killed by Nazi Germany w/ overall support of German population, while at the same time attempting to debunk the depositional theory argument / Milgrma (born Jewish) suggested a situational theory to explain what German ppl had done supporting the holocaust / situational theory states that ppl in similar situations (Germans in WWII) would harm or potentially kill other human beings under orders of an authority figure

aims/hypothesis

(1) investigate how obedient individuals would be to orders received from a person in authority / (2) whether people would be obedient even when it would result in physical harm to another person

research methodology

RMD / laboratory experiment → conducted at Yale University, New Haven, CT

participant sample

40 white men (20-50 y/o) living new New Haven, CT → range of job types: very skilled to low labor (blue collar: hand on jobs, white collar: office jobs) → volunteer sample: P had to respond to a newspaper advertisement to be considered for the experiment → no control conditions

psychology being investigated

Social psychology: how others behave & respond to persons in authority falls directly under social influences & pressures

IV’s and DV’s

IV (not official): the pressure (direct/indirect) of the researcher on the P / DV: amount of shock intensity administered by the P

procedures

Milgram placed an advertisement requesting volunteers (paid to take part) → P sample selected form those that responded → upon arrival at lab, 2 P introduced & then randomly one was selected to be teacher & learner (teacher was the real P, learner is a STOOGE), Milgram shows both teacher/learner the setup → teacher shown shock generator machine & increasing number of volts labeled w/ differing terms (voltage readings ranges from 15v-450v, shock voltage labeled in order w/ words such as moderate shock to danger severe shock & XXX → P were told although shocks painful, they weren’t dangerous → P were given a 45v shock as demonstration → P were seated behind a wall so they could hear but not see learner (not hooked up to actual machine, didn’t receive any shocks, machine made to make teacher believe they injuring the learner) → same experimenter reminded w/ p the entire time → P told they would conduct a memory task (involving reading pairs of words aloud to the learner, then testing learner recognition on word pairs, when learner made a mistake P would give a shock, learner followed pre-arranges plan of mistakes for each trial) → until 300v reached, the learner remaimed silent when receiving punishment → at 300v, learner began to pound on wall in protest, THEN stopped pounding & stopped responding → researcher would encourage P to continue if & when asked what to do by P (please go on, please continue, the experiment requires that you continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue, etc) → experiment trial considered complete when P refused to continue giving more shocks or when they gave the maximum 450v → observations and recording of P behaviors conducted through a one way mirror (covert non-P observation) → after experiment, P were debriefed & a verbal interview took place (P were asked how painful they thought 450v was on a scale of 1-14), deception explained, P met learner to show they were not injured & healthy

equipment/material used

Na

results (quantitative data)

40/40 P reached minimum of 300 volts / 5 P stopped at 300v & refused to continue / 8 P stopped between 315-360v & refused roncontimue / 1 P stopped at 375v & refused to continue / 26 P went to maximum of 450v

results (qualitative data)

P sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, groaned, dug fingernails into the palm of their hands (common among ALL P) / P comments included “I dont think I can do go on with this, I can't do that to a man, ill hurt his heart” / tension & nervous laughing were witnessed (14/40 P) / 1 P had a seizure so experiment was halted for protection of their health

conclusions

(1) Individuals are much more obedient to authority than we might reasonably expect / (2) despite high levels of obedience, ppl find the experience of carrying out destructive acts under orders of authority triggers feelings of stress / factors contributing to obedience: Yale (highly regarded), P were all volunteers, thought research was worthy, P cut off from outside work so had to rely on researcher input, little time for reflection, told shocks weren’t dangerous, P were conflicted

strengths

Controlled laboratory observation → age & appearance of learner was constant / standardized procedures → same throughout all 40 trials, high lvls of control / collection of quantitative data → easy to compare, analyze, & test / use of qualitative data → makes it easy to establish correlation & explains P thoughts in detail

weaknesses

Sample not representative of German people or general population / sample was only men / collection of quantitative data makes it difficult to establish cause/effect / no control group to compare to a target group

situational & individual explanations

Na

nature vs nurture

Nature: argues that certain ppl are born more likely to obey orders from ppl in positions of command / nurture: certain cultures promote collectivist culture & group cohesion is valued more highly than individualistic culture that value independence

generalizability

(weakness) only contained men / (weakness) does not represent real life due to being conducted in laboratory → weakens ecological validity

reliability

(strength) high lvls of control & standardized procedures → each P went through exactly same experience

validity

(strength) clever design of electric shock generator & shock demonstration → ensured P was convinced study was real / (strength) carefully selected P to ensure range of ages & backgrounds → even those w/ professional backgrounds more likely to be in positions of power are susceptible to obeying commands of authority / (strength) quantitative measurement through voltage of shocks delieverse offered an objective record of obedience for each P: made it easy to compare results of P & draw conclusions

application

Teens getting into fights must understand how others can directly/indirectly pressure them to right. Military soldiers refusing to commit acts of violence on surrendered enemy soldiers or civilian populations if taught that resisting orders on a moral/ethical ground is justified

ethics

(weakness) right to withdraw was not explicit / (weakness) repeatedly deceived throughout the study / (weakness) P felt obligated to continue since paid (demand characteristics) / (strength) debriefed → P told real intent of study