MILGRAM: OBEDIENCE

AIM:

Milgram wanted to answer why such a high proportion of Nazi’s blindly obeyed Hitler’s orders in the war (he thought Germans were different in terms of obedience)

PROCEDURE:

40 American men (20-50 years old) from Connecticut signed up for an experiment that they were told was on memory
Each real participant was introduced to another ‘participant’ who was actually a confederate. They drew lots (which was fixed), so they had a teacher (the real participant) and a learner (the confederate)
The learner was strapped to an electric chair. The teacher was given a small electric shock so they understand what it felt like.
The learner had to remember a pair of words. Each time they purposefully answered incorrectly.
The electric shocks went up to 450V. After 300V the learner pounded on the wall and screamed.

4 STANDARD PRODS TO ORDER THE PARTICIPANT TO CONTINUE:

FINDINGS:

→ Every participant delivered ALL shocks up to 300V

→ 65% of participants were fully obedient, and went all the way up to 450V

→ Many participants trembled, stuttered and groaned

→ 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures

CONCLUSIONS:

→ Germans are not different

→ Americans were willing to obey orders even if they might harm someone

→ He believed certain situational factors (proximity, uniform and location) encouraged obedience

<EVALUATION>

Research Support

→ RESEARCH SUPPORT

One strength is that Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary.
The participants in the ‘game’ believed that they were contestants in the pilot episode of a new show called ‘The Game Of Death’. They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (actors).
80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460V. Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants (nervous laughter, nail-biting etc)
This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrates how the findings were not just due to special circumstances. It also shows how these results can be achieved in different countries, during different times.

Conflicting Evidence

→ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY

One limitation is that Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.
For example, Milgram reported that 75% of his participants believed the shocks were genuine.
However, other psychologists argue that participants were play-acting, and that only half of participants believed the shocks were real.
This suggest that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aim of the study, reducing the internal validity of the study.
However, other psychologists conducted a research study similar to Milgram’s.
Participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter.
54% of the men, and 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock.
This suggests that the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.

→ ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

Another limitation is that Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.
For example, a researcher showed that Milgram’s participants only obeyed when the experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods. However, without exception, every participant given the 4th prod (‘You have no other choice, you must go on’), disobeyed.
According to Social Identity Theory (SIT), participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research. When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.
This shows that (SIT) may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings.