obedience (milgram)

• Milgram's obedience baseline set up

  • 40 American male pps (supposedly for a study on memory) - each pp draw lots for their role
  • a confederate was always the 'learner' while the true pp was the 'teacher', and an 'experimenter' (confederate) wore a lab coat
  • teacher could hear but not see the learner
• Milgram's obedience baseline procedure

  • the teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric 'shock' each time he made a mistake on a task
  • the shocks increased in 15-volt steps up to 450-volts
  • the shocks were fake but the shock machine was labelled to make them look increasingly severe
  • if the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal 'prod' to continue
• baseline findings

  • 12.5% (5 pps) stopped at 300 volts
  • 65% continued to 450 volts (highest level)
  • observations (qualitative data) - pps showed signs of extreme anxiety
  • 3 had "full-blown uncontrollable seizures"
  • before the study Milgram asked 14 psych students to predict how they thought the naiive pps would respond
  • they estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts (=> baseline findings were unexpected)
  • after study, pps were debriefed, follow up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they participated
• baseline conclusions

  • we obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else
  • certain situational factors encourage obedience
• strength = replications have supported findings

  • French TV documentary/game show = contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other pps (actors)
  • 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man - their behaviour was like that of Milgram's pps (eg many signs of anxiety)
  • => supports milgram's original findings about obedience to authority
• limitation = study lacked internal validity

  • Orne and Holland = argued that pps guessed the electric shocks were fake, so they were 'play-acting'
  • this was supported by Perry's discovery that only half of the pps believed the shocks were real
  • suggests that pps may have been responding to demand characteristics
• strength = supporting study

  • Sheridan and Kings pps = gave real shocks to a puppy
  • 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
  • suggests the obedience in Milgram's study might be genuine
• limitation = findings are not due to blind obedience

  • Haslam et al = found that every pp given the first 3 prods obeyed the experimenter but those given the 4th prod disobeyed
  • according to social identity theory, the first 3 prods required identification with the science of the research but the 4th prod required blind obedience
  • shows that findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority
• extra evaluation = ethical issues

  • pps were deceived (thought shocks were real) - Milgram dealt with this by debriefing pps
  • Baumrind = felt this deception could have serious consequences for pps and researchers (eg no informed consent possible)
  • => research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public