Milgram et al - Obedience

Psychology being Investigated

In this study, Milgram was testing the situational hypothesis.

• Agentic state: people see themselves as agent of another and will blindly accept orders because they are not personally responsible for their actions. Arises from fact that obedience is rewarded and disobedience punished. We give up our free will.

• Autonomous state: Behavior is voluntary; people are aware of their decisions and consequences of those decisions. We choose to be obedient.

• Moral strain: we experience this in the agentic stage when we go along with the demands of the authority even though we know it is wrong and do not agree with it.

Background of the Study

• 11 million people were gruesomely killed by Nazis.

• Milgram, being Jewish, sought to determine if anyone under a similar situation would harm or murder others under an authoritative figure’s orders.

• He suggested a situational explanation for obedience.

• Consulted psychology students and colleagues, who predicted that less than 3% of participants would deliver the maximum voltage shock (450V).

Aim of the Study

• To find out whether people would be obedient to authority even if it meant physically hurting others.

Sample

• 40 men, aged 20-50 years from New Haven.

• Volunteer/self-selecting sampling (newspaper advertisement).

• Participants had a variety of educational backgrounds.

Research Method and Design

• Controlled observation in a laboratory setting at Linsly-Chittenden Hall, Yale University.

• Independent measures design.

Stooges

• Mr. William: Stooge; 31-year-old male school biology teacher in a grey technician coat. Acted as the experimenter, stern manner.

• Mr. Wallace: Confederate (learner); 47-year-old accountant who pretended to be another participant.

Procedure

• Participants were paid $4.50 for their willingness to participate.

• Participants were always assigned the role of ‘teacher’, while Mr. Wallace was always the ‘learner’ (deception).

• Told that the study was focused on memory and learning (false aim).

• Participants received a mild electric shock of 45V on the wrist to convince them the shocks were real.

• The learner never received actual shocks—machine was set up to create the illusion of harm.

• Memory task: Participants read word pairs aloud; each mistake was punished with an increasing voltage shock (+15V each time).

Shock Generator Details

• 30 switches in a horizontal line.

• Shock levels ranged from 15V to 450V.

Standardized Prods Used by Experimenter

1. "Please continue/please go on."

2. "The experiment requires you to continue."

3. "It is absolutely essential that you continue."

4. "You have no other choice, you must go on."

• Additional prods reassured participants that shocks would not cause permanent damage.

Learner’s Responses (Standardized)

• No protest until 300V.

• At 300V: Pounds on the wall.

• At 315V: Pounds again, then stops responding completely.

• No further response after 315V.

Teacher’s Behavior

• Told to move 15V higher with each mistake.

• Some showed visible distress: sweating, shaking, nervous laughter, smiling.

• Many expressed reluctance, e.g., "I'm gonna chicken out... I can't do that to a man, I'll hurt his heart."

• After the procedure: relief, wiping faces, sighing, shaking heads.

• A minority did not show signs of stress.

• Debriefing:

  • Met Mr. Wallace to ensure his well-being.

  • Asked to rate the pain of the 450V shock (scale of 0-14).

Results

• 65% (26/40) participants administered 450V.

• 14 participants defied orders and stopped early:

  • 5 at 300V, 4 at 315V, 2 at 330V, and one each at 345V, 360V, 375V.

• Mean voltage given: 368V.

• Mean pain estimate for 450V: 13.42 (on a scale of 0-14).

Conclusions

• Situational factors affecting obedience:

  • Legitimacy of context (prestigious Yale University).

  • Financial obligation (participants felt they had to continue).

  • Proximity to authority figure (close presence of experimenter).

  • Perceived lack of responsibility (told they would not be accountable).

  • Authority figure’s appearance and sternness.

  • Momentum of compliance (gradual voltage increases).

• People are more obedient to authority than expected.

• Carrying out destructive orders creates stress and conflict between:

  • Obedience to authority.

  • Moral responsibility to avoid harming others.

Ethical Issues

• Informed consent was not given (participants were deceived about the true aim).

• Deception (rigged role assignment and fake shocks).

• Right to withdraw was arguably compromised due to verbal prods.

• Psychological distress: Many were visibly shaken, anxious, and uncomfortable.

Evaluation (Strengths and Weaknesses)

Strengths

• Controlled observation minimized extraneous variables.

• Standardized procedures (same prods, shock increments) increased reliability.

• Test shock (45V) & realistic shock generator enhanced validity.

• Objective measurement of voltage levels made data easy to analyze.

• Qualitative data (observations of behavior) provided rich insights.

Weaknesses

• Low generalizability (all-male sample from New Haven).

• Ethical concerns (deception, stress, possible long-term psychological effects).

• Lack of ecological validity (artificial lab setting).

Participants may have obeyed due to demand characteristics (guessing the aim).

Issues and Debates

• Individual vs Situational Explanation

  • Situational: Most participants obeyed due to authority presence, Yale setting, and prods.

  • Individual: Some participants resisted, suggesting personality traits play a role in obedience.

Real-Life Applications

• Workplace ethics: Encourages employees to challenge unethical orders.

• Educational institutions: Helps in understanding peer pressure and authority influence.

• Hospitals: Strengthens whistle-blowing policies to prevent medical malpractice.