Milgram baseline and variations; research issues

p20-23, 156-7

What is obedience?

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order, usually from a figure of authority

What was Milgram’s baseline study?

Post WW2

AIM- to investigate the extent to which individuals would obey an authority figure, even when orders given conflicted with personal conscience.

• 40 Male participants 20-50 from New Haven area- offered $4.50,thought were in a study on learning and memory at Yale

• PP introduced individually to a confederate- drew lots for ‘Teacher’ (T) or ‘Learner’ (L)- fixed so participant always Teacher- Confederate ‘Experimenter’ (E) always involved

• E ordered T to give increasingly string (fake) shocks to L in a diff, room (15-450V)

• E gave series of prods to encourage T- please continue, the experiment requires that you continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue, you have no ither choice; you must go on

What were Milgram’s baseline findings?

• Every participant- all shocks to 300V, 12.5% stopped there, 65% all the way to 450V, fully obedient

• Signs of extreme tension and moral strain- sweatingm trembling, even seizures

• SIgnificantly higher obedience than anticipated- pre study, 14 pysch students asked to predict results, thought only 3% would continue

What was Milgram’s baseline conclusion?

• German people ‘not different’- American participants willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person

• ordinary people are capable of committing inhumane acts when placed under the authority of a perceived legitimate figure despite personal conflict

  • power of authority could lead to act against own morals, shows how atrocities can occur

What evidence supports/refutes Milgram’s study?

• High external validity- replicated many times- Burger (2009) avoided ethical issues- data collection ended after 150V- classed as fully obedient bc Milgram found 79% who went beyond 150V continued to the end

  • Grzyb (2023)- 90% of 40 participants went to 150V- obedience same from a robot or a human

  • Not just limited to the context of Milgram’s study

• Low internal validity- Ome and Holland (1968) participants play-acting”- Perry (2013) only half believed shocks were real, ⅔ of disbelievers disobedient

  • Perhaps response to demand characteristics

  • CP- Sheridan and King (1972)- real shocks to a puppy- real distress- 54% of men and 100% of women- obedience even when shocks believed to be real

• PPs did not obey “You have no other choice, you must go on”- Social identity theory- didn’t blindly obey authority, only when fulfilling scientific aims

Evaluate Milgram’s study

• Control over extraneous variables- ensured Milgram measuring what was intended- higher internal validity

• Standardised procedure-

• Low realism- decreased ecological validity due to lower belief in shocks so more likely to fulfil demand characteristics, perhaps increasing obedience

• No random allocation of pps- volunteers were always the teacher - how do we know it was the authority and not e.g. the individuals personality that led to high levels of obedience to destructive authority- ignores dispositional factors

• Volunteer sample- having a volunteer sample could have perhaps decreased demographic of people involved

• Ethical issues- pps deceived, leading to severe psychological distress- may also create a ‘justification’ for evil behaviour and disregard dispositional factors

• Led to tighter ethical guidelines- called into question deception as pps- believed that obedience would have led to important research in learning that would be “worthy” of the punishment.

What were Milgram’s proximity variations?

• T and L put into same room

• Touch proximity- T had to force L’s hand onto ‘electroshock plate’ if L refused

• Remote instruction- E left the room and gave T instructions over the telephone

What were the proximity variations’ findings?

• Same room- drop from 65 to 40%

• Touch proximity- obedience further dropped to 30%

• Remote instruction- reduced to 20%, T often pretended to give shocks

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences- obedience decreased in this variation, T more aware of harm caused, less obedient as moral strain increases- less able to deny their responsibility

What was Milgram’s location variation?

Set in run-down office block in Bridgeport rather than prestigious Yale

What were the findings of the location variation?

• Obedience dropped from 65 to 47.5%

Prestigious environment created legitimacy and authority which T believed should be extended to E- obedience still quite high because of perceived ‘scientific’ experiment

What was Milgram’s uniform variation?

• E called away at start for a phone call, confederate ‘member of public’ in every day clothes called in to take over

What were the uniform variation findings?

• Obedience fell to 20%

Uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience’- symbols of authority, nonuniform has less right to expect obedience

What supports Milgram’s variations?

• studies showing influence of situational variables- Bickman (1974) field study- 3 confederates in 3 outfits asked people to carry out tasks- 2x more likely for security guard than jacket and tie- suggests uniform can influence obedience

  • CP- nor all uniforms show authority, sometimes just smartly dressed

• Cross-cultural replication- 1986, Dutch- more realistic- men and women saying stressful things to confederate interviewee desperate for a job- 90% obeyed, when order giver not present, obedience dropped

What are the limitations of Milgram’s variations?

• Replications not v ‘cross-cultural’- between 1966 and 1985 2 replications- India and Jordan- different cultures to the US- therefore can’t perhaps apply to all or most cultures

• PP behaviour might not reflect obedience to authority- Perry (2013)- trying to fulfill demand characteristics- not actually measuring obedience

• Situational explanation may offer an excuse for evil behaviour- unfair to Holocaust survivors, also ignores dispositional factors

What is a control group?

(Ideally no treatment group, placebo group and standard/existing treatment)- group of participants who receive no treatment- behavior acts as a baseline to compare against effects of IV- increases IV

What are demand characteristics?

Any cue from the research that PP can interpret as revealing investigation’s purpose, causing them to change their behaviour in the situation- please-U/screw-U

What is an extraneous variable?

Any non IV variable that needs to be controlled so it doesn’t affect the DV- addotional, unwanted, often easily controlled

What are investigator effects?

Any of the investigator’s behaviour (conscious or unconscious) affecting DV e.g design of study, selection of/interaction with participants during research process- unconscious cues eg smiling, expectancy effects- e.g leading qs

What is randomisation?

Using chance methods (e.g random number generator) to control effects of unconscious bias when designing materials and deciding the order of experimental conditions

What is standardisation?

Using same procedures and instructions for all participants in a study- environment, information, experience- controls extraneous variables