Milgram’s original study of obedience (1963)

• Aim: To investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.
• How many participants were recruited for the experiment?

  40 participants
• Where did the experiment take place?

  Yale University
• What were participants told the experiment was about?

  The effects of punishment on learning
• What was the actual focus of the experiment?

  Obedience to authority
• Who was the real participant in the experiment?

  The 'teacher'
• What role did the 'learner' play in the experiment?

  The 'learner' was always a confederate
• How was the 'learner' positioned during the experiment?

  In a separate room, heard but not seen
• What was the procedure when the 'learner' got a question wrong?

  Administer an electric shock increasing by 15 volts
• What was the maximum voltage of the electric shock?

  450 volts
• Were any actual shocks administered to the participants?

  NO SHOCKS were actually given
• How did the participants react as the shocks increased?

  The learner shouted in pain and protested
• What happened after 300 volts were administered?

  The learner made no further sounds
• What was the source of the sounds made by the 'learner'?

  They were all fake recordings
• Who oversaw the experiment?

  An 'experimenter' who was a biology teacher
• What did the 'experimenter' provide to the 'teacher' during the experiment?

  Verbal prods to continue the experiment
• What was one of the verbal prods given by the experimenter?

  'The experiment requires you to continue'
• How many volts did all participants continue up to?

  300 volts
• How were participants recruited for the experiment?

  Via an advert in a newspaper
• What percentage of participants continued up to the maximum voltage?

  65%
• How much were participants offered for their time?

  $4.00 for an hour
• What signs did participants display during the study?

  Nervousness and tension
• What did many participants appear to need to continue the study?

  Verbal prods from the experimenter
• What was the emotional response of obedient participants at the end of the study?

  They heaved sighs of relief or shook their heads
• What conclusion did Milgram draw about obedience?

  It was situational, not dispositional
• What does Milgram's study suggest about ordinary people and authority figures?

  • Ordinary people obey authority figures
  • They may harm innocent individuals
  • Obedience can override personal morals
• Situational variables affecting obedience

  • Location
  • The location the experiment is run by ‘an advertising agency’ and is carried out is moved to a run-down office block in Bridgeport.  The researcher wears jeans and a T shirt.
  • 48%
  • Obedience drops when the authority figure has less legitimate power through location and clothing.
• Situational variables affecting obedience

  • Uniform
  • The experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient phone call right at the start of the procedure and his role was taken over by ‘an ordinary member of the public’ (also a confederate) who wore normal clothes not a lab coat.
  • 20%
  • Obedience drops considerably when the authority figure is not seen to have legitimate authority.
• Situational variables affecting obedience

  • Two Teacher Condition
  • Participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches. When there is less personal responsibility obedience increases. This relates to Milgram's Agency Theory.
  • 92.5%
  • Obedience rises considerably when there is less personal responsibility.
• Situational variables affecting obedience

  • The proximity of the researcher to the teacher.

   The experimenter gave orders over the phone, rather than being in the same room as the participant.

  • 21%
  • Obedience drops when the authority figure is not face to face with the person they are giving orders to.
• Situational variables affecting obedience

  •  The proximity of the teacher to the learner.
  • Both teacher and learner are in the same room (so the teacher can see and hear the learner).
  • 40%
  • This is because the authority figure becomes depersonalised and is easier to disobey.
  • in real life, it is much easier to disobey someone when an order is given by phone or e-mail than when it is given face-to-face.
  • If the teacher can see the learner, it is harder to obey the authority figure because the learner is no longer depersonalised.
• strength

  • is that there is research evidence to support the influence of situational variables.  For example, Bickman (1974) looked at the effect of uniform on obedience.  They got a confederate dressed either in a jacket/tie or as a milkman or as a security guard to ask a passer-by to provide a coin for the parking meter (or similar).  They found that people were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket-tie’ confederate.
  • This supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is a situational factor that can influence obedience.

   
• What is one strength of Milgram’s studies?

  The methodology used
• Why were laboratory experiments used in Milgram’s studies?

  To allow high levels of control
• How did Milgram ensure each participant had the same experience?

  By writing down the verbal prods
• What do high levels of control in a study allow for?

  Replication to check for reliability
• What does the ability to replicate Milgram’s studies indicate?

  That the study has reliability
• What can be established due to high levels of control in Milgram’s studies?

  Cause and effect relationships
• Why can we be confident that people obeyed in Milgram’s studies?

  Due to the presence of the authority figure
• What is one weakness of Milgram's variations?

  Lack of internal validity