Milgram's Obedience Study Flashcards

Social Psychology: Obedience - Stanley Milgram (1963)

Overview

Milgram's obedience study investigated the extent to which individuals obey an authority figure, even when it involves harming another person.

Aim

To investigate the extent to which people obey an authoritative figure, even if it involves harming another person.

Participants

• 40 men aged 20-50 years old.
• Range of occupations, from unskilled to professional.
• Recruited through volunteer sampling, responding to an advertisement in New Haven, USA.
• Participants were paid 4 per hour plus $0.50 for transport.

Methodology

• Laboratory experiment with structured observation at Yale University.

Procedure

1. Participants were paid upfront and assigned roles of learner or teacher (rigged so the confederate was always the learner).
2. An experimenter in a lab coat was present.
3. Two rooms were used: one for the learner (with electrodes) and one for the teacher and experimenter (with a shock generator).
4. Participants were told the experiment was about the effect of punishment on learning.
5. The teacher administered electric shocks for each mistake, increasing by 15v each time, from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).
6. At 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response. The experimenter used standardized prods if the teacher hesitated (e.g., 'Please continue,' 'You have no choice, you must go on.').

Results

• 100% of participants went to 300 volts.
• 12.5% stopped at 300 volts.
• 65% continued to the full 450$$ volts.
• Qualitative data: Participants showed signs of tension, such as sweating, trembling, and stuttering; some had seizures.
• 84% reported feeling glad to have participated in a follow-up questionnaire.

Conclusions

Milgram's study supports Agency Theory, showing how ordinary individuals in the agentic state will follow orders from authority figures (wearing a uniform) to harm another person.

Ethical Considerations

• Informed Consent: Participants were deceived about the true aim (obedience, not memory and learning).
• Right to Withdraw: Verbal prods limited the right to withdraw.
• Protection from Harm: Psychological harm was not prevented.
• Debriefing: Participants were debriefed after the experiment.

Evaluation (GRAVE)

• Generalizability: Androcentric and ethnocentric sample (40 men aged 20-50 from the USA).
• Reliability: Standardized procedure increases reliability; the study can be replicated.
• Application: Supports Agency Theory and helps explain obedience in real-world situations.
• Validity: Low ecological validity due to the artificial task. High internal validity; cause and effect can be established.
• Ethics: Lack of fully informed consent, deception, and limited right to withdraw. Psychological harm was caused, though participants were debriefed.