Obedience: Milgram (1963)

What is obedience?

Following a direct order from someone in authority.

What was Milgram’s aim?

To investigate obedience to authority.

Who were the participants in Milgram’s study?

40 American male volunteers.

What role did the participant have?

Teacher.

What role did the confederate have?

Learner.

What did participants believe the study was about?

The effects of punishment on learning.

What was the procedure in Milgram’s study?

Participants gave electric shocks for wrong answers, increasing up to 450V.

Were the shocks real?

No, they were fake.

What happened when the learner made mistakes?

The teacher delivered a shock.

What signs of stress did participants show?

Sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter.

What percentage obeyed fully to 450 volts?

65%.

What percentage went to at least 300 volts?

100%.

What did Milgram conclude?

People obey legitimate authority even if it causes harm.

What were the standardised verbal prods?

“Please continue”, “The experiment requires you to continue”, “You have no other choice”.

Why are the prods important?

They show the study was well standardised.

What ethical issue involved deception?

Participants were deceived about the true aim and shocks.

What ethical issue involved protection from harm?

Participants experienced high levels of stress.

What ethical issue involved the right to withdraw?

Participants were told they had no choice.

Why was informed consent an issue?

Participants could not consent to the true nature of the study.

How did Milgram deal with ethical issues after the study?

Participants were debriefed.

What did Baumrind (1964) criticise?

Milgram’s lack of informed consent and harm to participants.

Why does Milgram’s study lack population validity?

Only American men were tested.

What criticism suggests Milgram’s study lacked internal validity?

Participants may have guessed the shocks were fake.

Who criticised Milgram’s internal validity?

Orne and Holland.

What evidence supports Milgram’s findings?

French et al. replicated the study.