Variables affecting obedience~ Milgrams study

• Who were the participants and what was the aim of Milgram's study 


  Milgram randomly selected 40 male volunteers and his aim was to observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person i.e. evaluating the influence of destructive authority figure
• Outline the procedure of Milgram's study

  A participant was given the role of 'teacher' and a confederate given a role of 'learner' this was decided through a random allocation. Participants had to ask the confederate a series of questions and whenever the confederates got the answer wrong the participants has to administer an electric shock even when no answer was given.
• By how much were the electric shocks incremented by

  The electric shocks incremented by 15 volts at a time ranging from 300v to 450v where 330v was marked as 'lethal' participants thought that the shocks were real when in fact no real shocks were administered and the confederate was acting.
• What were the participants then assessed on

  Participants were assessed on how many volts they were willing to shock the confederate whereby the experimenter's role was to give a series of orders when the participant refused to administer a shock which increased in terms of demandingness for every time the participants refused to administer a shock the same 4 prods were used each time when participants refused to administer the shocks
• What did the prods demand obedience to 


  The first three prods demanded obedience to science whereas the final prod demanded obedience specifically to the confederate
• What were the findings from Milgram's study

  All participants went up to 300V and 65% went up to 450 V. No participants stopped below 300 V whilst only 12.5% stopped at 300 v showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate
• How did proximity affect levels of obedience

  Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room i.e. 62.5% this was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms and reduced to a further 30% in the touch proximity condition i.e. where the experimenter forcibly placed the participant's hand on the electric plate
• How did location affect levels of obedience 


  Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university i.e. Stanford. This is because the prestige of such location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participants places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments
• How did uniform affect the levels of obedience 


  Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat. A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes. However demand characteristics were particularly evident in this condition with even Milgram admitting that many participants could see through his deception
• What is a strength of Milgram's study

  There are real life applications this research has opened our eyes to the problem of obedience and so may reduce future obedience in response to destructive authority figures e.g. obedience has resulted in negative social change the Nazis obeyed orders and as a result Hitler managed to get what he wanted.
• According to Milgram's research Nazis may have obeyed Hitler

  According to Milgram's research Nazis may have obeyed Hitler perhaps due to the choice of uniform generals and high status leaders wore uniform as well as the variable location whereby Nazis often operated and were often located in official headquarters or military bunker complexes this potentially further increased obedience levels. Such research also gives an insight into why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews simply when told to and so highlights how we can all easily be victims of such pressures. A general awareness of the power of such influences is useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours
• However...

  However this research could also raise a socially sensitive issue seeing as though findings suggest that those who are responsible for killing innocent people can be excused because it is not their personality that perhaps made them more susceptible to obeying to social orders but because of the pressure felt from the situation that they were placed in hence they were found it more difficult to obey. This is especially prominent in the judicial system whereby people are expected to take moral responsibility for their behaviour however this research provides psychological justification for people not taking that moral responsibility and for the mass killing and ill treatment towards people
• What is a limitation of Milgram's research

  Another limitation of Milgram's research is the sole focus on the investigation of obedience levels in male participants. His research conducted only outlined effects of these situational variables on obedience levels males therefore the research conducted may suffer from beta bias. Milgram employed an androcentric approach in the sense that his male centred research and findings may not be able to explain behaviour of female participants as he erroneously minimised the role of potential differences between males and females. Although further research was later conducted showing similar obedience levels females during the study seemed more agitated and experienced higher levels of tension he also perceived that they felt more empathy for the learner which increased their levels of anxiety and therefore making it harder for them to defy the male experimenter
• What may be this due to

  This may be due one of the main biological differences between males and females which is the concentration of the hormone testosterone. Males have a higher concentration of this hormone which may be biological predisposing factor making them more eager to obey to the destructive figure whereby this hormone makes them more inclined to display aggression towards another individual hence high levels of obedience and willingness to obey authority figure
• This therefore...

  This therefore limits and reduces the population validity of Milgram's study therefore its accuracy and ability in being able to be applied across a population in particular the female population is restricted. His research may be unable to be used to explain real life situations across differing populations. This is more evident in the case of politics whereby citizens in certain populations according to this study may obey to a destructive authority figure due to how the authority figure present themselves certain populations value this variable more than others. His study being used to explain these situations due to its limited generalisability may mean that we inaccurately predict causations of obedience in humans.
• Kilham and Mann

  Kilham and Mann conducted a variation of Milgram's experiment in Australia and 16% of women were fully obedient in comparison to 40% of men whom were fully obedient this shows that between males and females there are gender differences in perception of legitimacy of authority however Milgram conducted a follow up study using female participants and found that obedience levels were almost identical to those of men 65% though women appeared to experience visible stress and anxiety but we must consider that female conditions obedience levels may have been similar due to females potentially feeling intimidated by the male experimenter this cofounding variable further reduces the validity of Milgram's study
• What is another limitation of Milgram's study

  Another limitation of his study is that there are negative ethical implications as you could say that deception and informed consent was not obtained. However deception may have been justifiable in order to avoid the possibility of demand characteristics, please u effect and participant reactivity. Deception may have inflicted possible psychological harm and psychological distress this was seen in participants such as nervous laughter, trembling, sweating etc
• What is another strength of Milgram's research

  External validity has been established by supporting studies e.g. Hofling et al, 1996, observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural experiment (covert observation). Researchers found that 95% of nurses in a hospital obeyed a doctor over the phone to increase the dosage of a patients medicine to double what is advised on the bottle
• what does this piece of research suggest

  This suggests that 'everyday' individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive authority figures as well as this the natural experiment means that behaviours seen were found in a setting to which they are commonly and naturally found therefore there are high levels of ecological validity. Research evidence supporting people's obedience towards destructive authority figures validates and strengthens this psychological explanation enabling psychologists to justify the need for interventions such as training programmes to help individuals question unethical authority and implement safety measures therefore demonstrating how research like this can directly influence policy and practice
• what is another possible criticism of Milgram's study

  Another possible criticism of Milgram's study is that it can be seen as deterministic suggesting that all individuals are almost passive and compliant when faced with authority. Use of this deterministic approach is unable to explain why some individuals in Milgram's study were defiant towards figures of authority
• this approach

  this approach ignores the complex interplay between factors such as moral reasoning or personal values that can influence an individual's willingness to obey or resist authority as well as dismissing the fact that people's decisions are not as a result of environmental/situational factors but are also shaped by unique experiences. This has negative societal implications whereby by this explanation adopting a deterministic view of human behaviour there is reduced emphasis on personal responsibility for actions whereby this explanation perhaps leans more to the idea that the environment or genetics may cause someone to obey or resist an authority figure therefore resulting in leniency in punishment instead of focusing on moral responsibility
• therefore

  Therefore this limits the explanations credibility and ability to be applied appropriately to situations where there is need to measure levels of social and moral responsibility. The explanations concise and deterministic nature may reduce psychologists ability to develop psychological interventions which can help different individuals foster a reduced drive to obedience towards destructive figures of authority