Milgram Obedience Experiments - Key Terms (Vocabulary)
Setup and Objective
Milgram’s study aimed to understand obedience to authority and how people could be induced to obey unjust regimes or participate in atrocities (e.g., the Holocaust).
The gist: investigate how ordinary people respond to legitimate authority when asked to perform acts that conflict with their conscience.
The historical context: Milgram’s work followed investigations into obedience to authority in social psychology.
Experimental Design and Roles
Participants were told they were taking part in scientific research to improve memory.
Roles: a teacher and a learner, separated by a screen.
Task: the teacher would ask the learner questions in a word game and administer an electric shock when the answer was incorrect.
Instruction to participants: increase the voltage with each wrong answer.
The learner’s identity: described as an actor, and the shocks were claimed to be harmless.
Authority figure: the experimenter in a white coat, perceived as a legitimate authority.
Procedure and Prods
The teacher’s task: administer shocks for each incorrect answer in a memory task.
The learner’s responses (via prerecorded prompts) included pleas for release or help, such as requests to stop.
The teacher would hear the learner cry out or protest: e.g., aspirations of getting out and calling for help.
Prods from the experimenter (the authority) included statements like: "Continue, please" and similar prompts implying the experiment requires continuation.
The learner’s actual status: an actor, and the shocks were not real.
The dynamic: the authority’s prompt to continue repeatedly pressured the teacher to proceed despite objections or discomfort.
Representative Transcript Moments (Illustrative Quotes)
Learner’s pleas: "Get me out of here. Get me out of here, please." and other cries for help.
Prods from the experimenter: "Continue, please. Go right ahead. The experiment requires you to continue."
Teacher’s prompts and compliance: phrases like "Please continue" reflect the pressure to obey.
The learner’s protests captured in the transcript: dialogue such as "I’m not sure I can go on" or similar interruptions, showing distress.
A line indicating the deception: "The learner was really an actor, and the shocks were harmless." (emphasizes the ethical dimension of deception in the study)
Example of the content of stimuli: after a sequence, the prompt list includes the stimulus words like "Slow. Walk, dance, truck, music" as part of the task context.
A direct quote illustrating accountability and authority: "Who’s going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman? I’m responsible for anything that happens here. Continue, please." (reflects perceived responsibility shifting to the authority and the setup)
Learner’s distress and responses during the procedure: "Hans. I think something’s happened to the fallen there. I don’t get no answer. He was hollering on the last voyage. Can’t you check-in and see if he’s alright, please?" (illustrates the perceived emergency and the learner’s vocal distress)
Key Findings and Statistics
A central quantitative finding: Two thirds of volunteers were prepared to administer a potentially fatal electric shock when encouraged by an authority figure perceived as legitimate.
Expressed as a fraction: rac{2}{3} of participants complied with the command to continue under the authority figure’s influence.
Context of the finding: obedience occurred even when the participant believed the act could harm another person.
The authority figure: the experimenter wearing a white coat, signaling legitimacy and expertise.
Immediate Interpretations and Significance
Milgram’s findings suggested that ordinary people can commit acts against their conscience under authority pressure.
The study challenged the notion that only a small subset of people would engage in harmful actions; instead, situational factors and authority cues can drive large-scale compliance.
The results were framed as showing a parallel between behavior in America and actions seen under Nazi rule, highlighting the power of situational forces over individual dispositions.
Ethical, Philosophical, and Practical Implications
Ethical concerns:
Deception: participants believed they were in genuine memory research with real shocks; the learner was an actor and the shocks were fake.
Potential harm: participants experienced anxiety, stress, and moral conflict while believing they could harm another person.
Informed consent and risk-benefit analysis become central questions when deception is involved and when participants may experience distress.
Philosophical implications:
The power of authority vs. personal conscience: how situational pressures can override moral judgments.
Responsibility diffusion: statements like "I’m responsible for anything that happens here" reflect the complex assignment of moral responsibility between the participant and the authority figure.
The study informs debates about determinism, agency, and ethics in social order and institutions.
Real-world applications and cautions:
Training and oversight in organizations to prevent harm when directives come from perceived authorities.
Awareness of how procedural conformity and authority cues can influence decision-making in high-stakes settings (e.g., medical, military, organizational).
Connections to Foundational Principles
Obedience to authority as a powerful situational factor in human behavior.
Distinction between situational and dispositional explanations of behavior; Milgram’s results emphasize situational pressure over stable personality traits in predicting obedience.
The role of legitimate authority and professional dress (e.g., white coats) as signals that intensify compliance.
Use of experimental control to isolate variables related to authority, proximity, and perceived responsibility.
Real-world Relevance and Reflection
The transcript frames Milgram’s work as a lens into how ordinary citizens can participate in atrocities under authority pressure.
The study’s implications extend to understanding historical events and to contemporary organizational dynamics where authority structures may suppress dissent.
Limitations and Critical Perspectives (From Transcript Context)
The content notes the deception used in Milgram’s design and the potential distress to participants; critiques focus on ethics and the generalizability of laboratory obedience to real-world contexts.
Summary of Takeaways
Milgram explored how authority can compel people to act against their conscience.
The majority of participants (about rac{2}{3}) followed directives from an authority figure even when those directives could harm another person.
The learner’s role as an actor and the use of a white-coat experimenter were central to the observed obedience.
The findings sparked enduring discussions about ethics, human nature, and the influence of situational factors on moral judgment.