milgram

Psychology being investigated - Milgram

Agentic state

when we give up our free will to serve as an agent of authority

Psychology being investigated - Milgram

autonomous state

we act on our own free will and choose whether to obey or not

Aims for milgram

Overall: see how obedience would change if orders were given by authorities

Specific: find out how large an electric shock a person would give to a helpless subject if ordered to do so

Milgram hypothesis

Americans would not obey orders if it harms someone

Milgram sample

40 American white men of differing professions, ages 20-50

Milgram sampling method

Volunteer; replied to a newspaper ad

Milgram location

Lab at Yale

milgram research methods

• Controlled observation in a lab (technically a pre-lab experiments since there was only one condition)

  • Interviews, questionnaires

Milgram research design

N/A, only one condition

milgram dv

Maximum intensity shock participant is willing to administer before he refuses to participate further

milgram iv

n/a, only one condition

materials milgram

shock generator: consists of 30 switches in a horizontal line, each is clearly labeled with number of volts

15-volt increments between switches

When switch is pulled, blue light flases s

stooges for milgram

“experimenter”: a 31yo high school teacher of biology, impassive, stern demeanor, dressed in a grey lab coat

“learner”: the victim, Mr. Wallace, 47yo accountant, mild mannered and likeable

procedure

• Subjects were told by the experimenter that the study’s purpose was to learn more about the effect of punishment on learning

• Subjects were paid

• Subject was introduced to the other “subject”(Mr. Wallace) and informed about why punishment was used for learning. “teacher” role always assigned to subject

• Learner(Mr, Wallace) was strapped into a chair in another room separated by a wall. Subject could only hear Mr. Wallace, not see him

• Instructions given to the teacher/subject: 45-volt demonstration shock given to subject. Word pairs given and recognition test for leaner. For each mistake learner was given shock in 15volt increasing increments

• At 300 and 315 volts, Wallace pounded on the wall, then stopped responding

  • teacher was encouraged to continue with 4 prods and 2 special prods as needed

milgram 4 prods

• Please continue or please go on

• the experiment requires that you to continue

• it is absolutely essential that you continue

• you have no other choice, you must go on

milgram special 2 prods

• Answer to question about injury: Shocks are painful but do not cause permanent injury

• If subject said learner wanted to stop: Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly

milgram data collection

most trials were recorded, some photos taken through one way mirror, notes about unusual behavior; also objective notes about any behaviors

data types milgram

QT - maximum shock administered by each subject

QL - recordings and photos of behaviors and comments of subjects; interview during debriefing

QT results for milgram

Everyone went up to 300 volts

26/40 (65%) of subjects went all the way up to max. 450 volts

QL results for milgram

Many subjects showed signs of distress: some started to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, nervous laughter, shaking, etc.

Interviews showed subjects were convinced that shocks were real

milgram conclusion - unexpected results

• 26 followed the orders from an authoritative figure who actual had no power and went to max. shock level. Yale students and colleagues had predicted any 0-3% of subjects would give max. shock

• subjects found the experience of obeying destructive orders very stressful

factors that impact/explain the high level of obedience

• Professional, academic setting'

• stern demeanor and formal attire of scientist

• perceived legitimacy of the study

• subjects were paid and felt obligated to complete their part

• subjects believed that ‘learner’ was participating freely

• use of prods

research method strength milgram

high level of standardization and control allow for replication to test reliability and reduces extraneous variables

research method strength examples milgram

• everyone was given a sample shock

• scripted behavior of learner

• the prods

research method weakness milgram

artificial setting lacks ecological validity. Sitting in a lab in front of a shock generators is not a ‘normal’ environment

lack of mundane realism. Being asked to be a teacher and give electric shock to another human being are not very day activities.

research design strength milgram

each person went through experiment once. There was no order or practice effect. Hard to guess aim which reduces demand characteristics

sampling method milgram

volunteer sampling method means less likely to drop out

easy for experimenter

sample strengths milgram

increased generalizability bc of range of backgrounds careers and ages

sample weakness milgram

all men, all white, all from New Haven, lower generalizability

sampling method strength

subjects less likely to drop out

sampling method weakness

self selection of certain types of participants (lowers generalizability)

ethics upheld

debriefing: At the end subjects were interviews and de-hoaxed(de-briefed), asked open-ended questions and were given tests to reveal hidden emotions

protection: goal was for subjects to leave in a state of well-being. All met Mr. Wallace who reassured them he was not harmed and all was done for an important cause,

ethics broken

deception: people believed they were actually harming someone

(partial) right to withdraw: was not clear due to the prods

protection: participants were visibly distressed

(partial) informed consent: Ss did consent but did not know the truth about

what they were going to be asked to do

data strength

QT: objective and allows for performing statistical analysis

QL: allows finding explanation

validity increased by

High control of extraneous variables assures that it is only the IV that is effecting the DV rather than extraneous variables

Realism of situation: Design of shock generators and the sample shock convinced subjects that study was real and their actions really mattered.

Generalizability: Ss from a variety of backgrounds – even educated professionals obeyed

validity decreased by

Possible researcher effect: Even though the experimenter tried to always act the same, he may have not been able to do so always

Lack of Realism: Low ecological validity and mundane realism – may have caused Ss to be more or less obedient

Generalizability: Ss were all white and male; was a self-selected sample

reliability increased by

High level of standardization of procedures allows for replication and checking of reliability (are results the same the second time)

application to everyday life (view chart)

Study provides explanation of why people are obedient to

authority even if this contradicts their personal inclinations.

Individual vs situational

Situational: subjects influenced by the situation (location at prestigious university, lab, experimenter, etc.)

Researcher tried to eliminate individual explanation by choosing a

range of different subjects