Milgram

Aim

To study the obedience of authority.

Whether individuals would obey instructions to harm other people because of an authority figure

Procedure

Subjects were instructed by an authority figure to enforce an increasingly intense electric shock to a "learner" who showed pain and distress

Results

65% of participants obeyed the authority figure and administered the maximum level of shocks, despite their obvious discomfort

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that ordinary people are likely to obey authority figures, even when the orders conflict with their own moral beliefs

Sample

• 40 male

• Ages 20-50 years old 

• Different educational backgrounds

• American (New Haven)

Sampling Method

Volunteer / Self-Selected

Observation

• Carried out in a lab

• Controlled + structure

• Observations through a one-way mirror

Prods

• “You must continue.”

• “The experiment requires you to continue.”

• “It is absolutely essential you continue.”

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

Procedure (pt. 1)

• Each subjects took part 1 at a time 

• Subjects and confederate drew slips to determine their role 

• The slips were rigged so that the subject would always have the teacher role 

• The confederate (Mr Williams) would be the learner and receive fake shots 

• Subjects watched as the learner was strapped onto a chair and wired up 

• Participants received a real shock of 45V to convince them that the shock generator was real 

• The experimenter reassured that the shocks would be painful but no permanent damage would be caused

• Subjects were given tasks to complete. 

Task

• The task required the participants to read word pairs

• Then they had to read out a keyword and four possible pairs

• The learner had 4 buttons and had to press one corresponding to their answer to the question

• The learner gave some correct answers and some incorrect answers

• An incorrect answer lead the learner to get shocked by 15V

• Every incorrect answer increased the shock voltage to increase by 15V.

• Subjects were required to inform the learner the voltage before conducting the shock

Procedure (pt. 2)

• At 300V, the learner bangs on the wall and the answers stop appearing 

• When the participants look at the experimenter for guidance, they were told to treat it as no response and still shock the learner

• The experimenter had a script with “prods” they had to follow and make the subject go on

Procedure (pt. 3)

• Participants were interviewed using open-ended questions

• They were given attitude scales 

• The participants and the confederate met up to ensure he was okay 

• Reduce any tension that was built while take taking part

Quantitative results

• 26/40 continued to the end (65%) and administered the full 450V

• All the participants (100%) obeyed until 300V.

• 14/40 showed signs of nervous laughter 

• 5/40 dropped out half way (12.5%) 

• 3 participants had a full seizure

Qualitative Results

• Nervous laughing

• Sweating

• Trembling 

• Stuttering 

• Groaning

• Digging their fingernail into their flesh

Conclusion

The study found that even ordinary Americans are obedient to legitimate authority, so the “Germans are different” hypothesis is rejected. Certain situations cause individuals to react differently and abandon their moral beliefs just to obey an authoritative figure and adopt the agentic state.

Strength (Evaluation)

• Participants were from a variety of occupation and backgrounds

  • The results can be generalized to a wide range of people 

• The sampling method is very easy and convenient. 

  • More likely to stay in the experiment 

  • They volunteered themselves, so they are committed

Weakness (Evaluation)

• The sample is ethnocentric 

  • All participants were from America (New Haven).

  • The study only looks at the western group of people 

  • Assuming that the study applies to everyone and all cultures 

• The sample is androcentric where it's all males 

  • The study cannot be generalized to females 

• The particular group of participants are less likely generalise the results to different types of people

  • Obedience levels might vary

Strength (Method)

• The study has high internal validity

  • High control of the experiment as it is in a controlled environment 

  • Can test/measure obedience in controlled conditions 

  • Various extraneous beings being limited 

• Easy to replicate the study 

  • It is very standardised 

  • Same instructions, prods, authority figure, shock generator 

• Can gather both quantitative and qualitative data

Weakness (Method)

• Lack of ecological validity 

  • Cant be applied to everyday life 

  • Limits the extent to which the study can be generalised 

• Lacks mundane realism 

  • The unusual task of shocking someone does not happen in the real world

• Participants are more likely to respond to demand characteristics.

  • The unusual lab experiment makes the participants more likely to guess the aim of the study 

  • The fact that the authority figure isnt doing it himself is suspicious 

  • Might have caused further demand characteristics.

• Includes observer bias

  • Participants' true feelings are unknown 

  • Makes the study inaccurate

Strength (Reliability)

• Controlled environment 

• Standardised instructions

• Easier to replicate

Weakness (Reliability)

• Gina Perry (2012)

  • Obedience levels vary in different variations

• The experimenter went off-script

• Provided 20 prods

• Study is not as standardised

High Internal Validity

As it was carried out in a lab with high control of the study, it was standardised and measured obedience in a controlled manner. The higher they were on the voltage scale, the more obedient they were.

Low Internal Validity

Prods have not been standardised, and participants could have responded to demand characteristics.

Low External Validity

It is focused only on the western group of people 

High External Validity

The sample includes males from different backgrounds

Low Ecological Validity

The tasks and situations are not realistic and does not demonstrate realistic everyday settings

Informed Consent (Issues)

• Indirect consent 

• Participants weren't aware of the true aim of the study

Informed Consent (Defend)

If participants were told the true aim, they would have responded to demand characteristics

Deception (Issues)

• Believed that the shocks were real 

• Confederate was a participant

• Was rigged

Deception (Defend)

• It is important to deceive the participants 

• Trigger natural behaviour

• No demand characteristics

• Debriefed all the participants after 

• Met the learner 

• 83.7% were glad to take part

Distress (Issues)

• Sweating

• Nervous laughing

• Trembling 

• Seizures

• Nails digging into flesh

Distress (Defend)

•  Debriefed all the participants after 

• All participants were given attitude scales 

• Participants were checked up a year later

• Short-term stress

Withdraw (Issues)

• Prods made it difficult to drop out 

• Were told to continue

Withdraw (Defend)

• Was informed at the beginning

• Participants have free will

• 35% dropped out 

Application

• Pilots who challenged authority prevented plane crashes by 20%

• The study of obedience can be used in workplaces, schools and families