Milgram's study into obedience

obedience

following a direct order from someone in a position of authority, who has the power to punish defiance

the electric shock study (1963) aim

to investigate whether any other nationality would blindly obey orders in the way that the German's had during ww2

What type of sample was used in the study?

Volunteer sample of 40 male Americans

what did they believe the study was about?

a memory test

Where did the participants arrive for the study?

At Yale University

Who met the participants upon arrival?

Mr. Wallace, a confederate

What condition did Mr. Wallace claim to have?

A heart condition

How were the roles of 'teacher' and 'learner' assigned?

By drawing names from a hat, but it was rigged so participants were always the teacher

Where was the participant (teacher) seated during the experiment?

In a room with the experimenter, but in a different room from Mr. Wallace

What task did the participants perform with the learner?

Read word pairs to the learner

What was the consequence for every error made by the learner?

The learner received an electric shock, increasing in intensity

How much voltage was administered for the first wrong answer?

15 volts

What was the maximum voltage on the shock generator?

450 volts

Did the learner actually receive electric shocks?

No, the learner was not really receiving electric shocks

What was the dependent variable in the study?

How many participants would obey verbal prods and go to 450 volts

What happened when participants wanted to stop the experiment?

They were given verbal prods to continue

When were participants allowed to withdraw from the experiment?

Only after verbal prods had been given

what were the descriptions on the generator for the shock?

- 75 volts = moderate shock

- 300 volts = intense shock

- 375 volts = danger ; extreme shock

- 450 volts = XXX

what did the participants hear when they shocked the learner?

- a tape played set noises at set shock levels;

- 120 volts = 'the shocks are becoming painful'

- 270 volts - agonising scream, begs to be released

- 330 volts - ominous silence

what verbal prods were given?

- please continue

- please go on

- the experiment requires you to continue

- you have no other choice you must go on

- although the shocks are painful they cause no permanent damage

findings

- in the original study, all participants went up to 300 volts (labelled 'intense shock' on the generator; after the learner insists on being released)

- 65% of participants went up to 450 volts

- participants showed great distress (sweating, twitching) and some even had a seizure due to the pressure

conclusion

- germans are no different to the rest of the population

- we will all blindly obey orders despite harm that could be caused

evaluation research support

- was replicated in a French documentary made about reality TV

- Beauvois et al - focused on 'game' where participants believed they were in a pilot episode for a new game show (the game of death)

- they were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (confederates) in front of a studio audience

- 80% delivered max shock of 460 volts to apparently unconscious man

- supports Milgram findings about obedience to authority, replicable findings

evaluation low internal validity

- Milgram reported 75% of his participants believed the shocks were real

- Orne and Holland argued participants were play acting = demand characteristics

- Perry (2013) listened to tapes and only 1/2 believed real shocks and 2/3 were disobedient

COUNTERPOINT

- Sheridan and King (1972) had participants give puppy's a real shock after ordered by experimenter and despite the stress of the animal, 54% of men and 100% women delivered a shock they believed fatal

- suggests milgrams study was genuine

evaluation alternative interpretation of findings

- Hallam et al (2014) showed how participants obeyed when first three prods but every participant who was given the fourth prod always disobeyed

- according to social identity theory participants also obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims, but would not blindly obey an authority figure

- shows SIT may have a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings

evaluation ethical issues

- participants were deceived and milgram dealt with this by debriefs

- Baumrind (1964) criticised milgram for deceiving his participants as she believed that deception can have serious consequences for participants and researchers