Milgram’s research on obedience

What is obedience?

A figure of authority issues an order that an individual follows. The authority figure will have the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not displayed

What did Milgram want to find out?

• Why such a high proportion of German population obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder 6 million Jews and 5 million Romani, homosexuals, blacks people and others

• Was such brutality a product of sadistic minds, or just following orders

What did Milgram believe about Germans?

They were more obedient

What was Milgram’s baseline procedure?

• 40 American men volunteered to take part in a study supposedly conducting memory

• The participant was to be the Teacher, and met the Learner, who was actually a confederate, and the Experimenter, also a confederate in a lab coat.

• The Learner was strapped into a chair and wired up with electrodes.

• The Teacher was given a small shock to experience what they were about to give (this was the only real shock in the procedure).

• Each time the Learner made a mistake in a question, the Teacher had to deliver an increasingly stronger ‘electric shock’.

• At 300 volts, the Learner stopped responding.

What happened if a participant wanted to stop?

Experimenter gave increasingly convincing prods: ‘Please continue’, ‘The experiment requires you to continue’, ‘It is absolutely essential you continue’, ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.

What did every participant deliver?

Up to 300v

How many people stopped at 300v?

12.5%

How many people continued to the fatal 450v shock?

65%

What qualitative data did Milgram collect?

• Participants showed signs of extreme tension

• Seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their nails into their hands

• Three participants had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’

What did students predict the results of the study would be?

They estimated 3% would continue to 450v

What does the students’ estimation show?

Findings were unexpected - people are much more obedient.

What happened after the procedure?

• All participants debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal.

• 84% said they were glad to have participated.

What did Milgram conclude?

The Germans were not ‘different’ - the American participants were willing to obey orders even when it appeared to harm another.

How does Beauvois et al. (2012) support Milgram?

• Beauvois et al. (2012) replicated Milgram’s findings in a French documentary. In the documentary, participants were in a game show, but they actually believed they were contestants in a pilot of a new how.

• They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks ordered by the presenter to the other participants (confederates) in front of a studio audience.

• 80% of participants delivered a 450v shock to the ‘unconscious’ man.

• Their behaviour was almost identical to Milgram’s - nail-biting, nervous laughter, signs of anxiety.

How does Hoffling et al. (1966) support Milgram?

• Unknown doctor called 22 nurses and asked them to administer an overdose of a fake drug ‘Astroten’ which was not on any ward list.

• 21/22 of the nurses started to administer the drug → obeyed without question.

How does Sheridan and King (1972) support Milgram?

• Participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter.

• Despite the distress of the animal, 54% of men and 100% of women gave the fatal shock.

• Suggests effects were real - people were obedient even when the shocks were real.

How does Rank and Jacobson (1977) show Milgram has low external validity?

• Recreated Hoffling et al.’s study but altered aspects to make it more realistic - nurses were told in person by a doctor they knew, the drug was real, and the nurses had a chance to discuss with each other.

• Only 2/18 nurses obeyed.

• Suggests obedience may occur in situations that are unfamiliar, but in familiar situations, people tend to trust their own knowledge more.

Why does Milgram have low internal validity?

• Milgram reported 75% of his participants believed the shocks were genuine.

• However, Orne & Holland (1968) argue the participants behaved as they did because they were play-acting.

• Perry (2013) confirms this when she listened to the tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that only ½ believed they were real, and 2/3 of them were disobedient.

• Suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.

Why may SIT be a more valid explanation for their behaviour?

• Haslam et al. (2014)’s SIT shows that participants obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research, when the experimenter made it clear the shocks were for the sake of the study, but they did not blindly obey.

• Suggests SIT may be a more valid explanation, backed by Milgram himself.

How are Milgram’s findings culturally specific?

• Smith and Bond (1998) showed that replications in India and Jordan had drastically different results, due to cultural differences.

• Certain countries have similar notions over the role of authority

• Milgram’s findings cannot apply to all cultures

What ethical issues are there?

• Participants were deceived by believing the shocks were real

• They were put under extreme psychological effects, which could cause long-term problems

• They couldn’t give informed consent

• They couldn’t easily leave the experiment

Despite countless ethical issues, why did Milgram not break any official ethical guidance?

None existed - it was because of his and Zimbardo’s research that ethical issues became an urgent priority in psychology

How did changing the venue from a prestigious Yale university to a rundown office affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 47.5%

Why did changing the venue from a prestigious Yale university to a rundown office lower obedience?

• University setting gave study legitimacy and authority - participants were more obedient as they saw the Experimenter as legitimate.

• Obedience in the office was still relatively high as participants still saw the procedure as ‘scientific’.

How did allowing the participant to leave when they asled affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 40%

How did increased proximity between Teacher and Learner affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 40%

Why did increased proximity between Teacher and Learner lower obedience?

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, and therefore less aware of the harm they were causing.

How did the Teacher forcing the Learner’s hand onto the plate to receive electric shock affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 30%

How did support from two other disobeying teachers affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 10%

How did reduced proximity to authority figure affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 20.5%

How did getting a confederate to carry out the shocks affect obedience?

Obedience was higher - 92.5%

Did the findings of the study differ with female participants?

They were identical - 65%

How did the experimenter wearing normal clothing affect obedience?

Obedience was lower - 20%

Why did the experimenter wearing normal clothing lower obedience?

Uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority and are seen as legitimate - therefore someone without uniform is less likely to receive our obedience

What research support is there for uniform being a situational variable?

• Bickman (1974) dressed two confederates in a security guard uniform and a jacket and tie.

• Passers-by wee asked by these confederates to perform tasks such as picking up litter.

• Participants were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the person dressed in a jacket and tie.

How is increased variable replicable in other cultures?

• Meeus & Raajimakers (1986) ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) for a job - 90% obeyed.

• When the person giving orders was not present, obedience drastically fell.

How do the variations have low internal validity?

• Orne and Holland (1968) suggest that participants may have been aware the procedure was fake, and this was more likely in the variations as there was extra manipulations to variables.

• In the uniform variation, the Experimenter being replaced by a ‘member of the public’ was noted by Milgram himself to be quite an artificial situation, easily worked out by participants.

• Unclear if Milgram’s finding are due to obedience or demand characteristics.

How is Milgram’s situational explanation unjustified?

• Mandel (1998) states it offer an ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour - it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders.

• Explanation also ignores dispositional factors, suggesting the Nazis were victims of situations beyond their control.