1963 Original study

    Cards (21)

    • Aim
      To test the hypothesis, “Germans are different”, by investigating how the situational context could lead ordinary people to show obedience to authority and inflict harm on others
    • Sample
      40 adult male volunteers aged between 20 and 50 (a self-selected sample answering a newspaper advert or direct mail) were paid $4.00 to take part in a study of memory and learning’. They were mixed in age and profession.
    • Where did the investigation take place
      Yale university
    • Procedure part 1 (Mr Wallace)
      When they arrived the participant was asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat to determine which role he would play.  The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher.  There was also a “confederate” called “Mr Wallace” (a biology teacher pretending to be a participant who was actually acting during the experiment). The rigged draw always led to Mr Wallace being the learner.
    • Procedure part 2 (task)
      The teacher was instructed to start a word association task (via intercom). The teacher read a list of two word pairs - such as “blue/girl”, “fat/neck” - and the learner was supposed to memorise them. The teacher next read the first word of each word pair again and asked the learner to choose the correct second word from a choice of 4. The learner indicated his choice by pressing one of 4 switches in front of him (this lit up a light on the generator – seen by the teacher). 
    • Procedure part 3 (correct/incorrect answers)
      If the learner got the answer correct, then they would move on to the next word. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher was instructed by the researcher to deliver an electric shock to the learner.  The electric shocks were fake. 
    • What were the participants given before the experiment?
      Sample shock of 45v
    • What were the standardised responses in experiment 1
      Learner - 3/4 of the word task answers were given incorrectly (exactly the same every time).
      In Experiment 1 – Learner banged on the wall when 300v was applied. Learner refused to answer any more word task questions after 315 volts.
    • How did Milgram tactically convince the participants to continue to 450v?
      By giving the shocks in 15v intervals
    • Conclusions
      Obedience to authority is due more to situational factors than to ‘deviant’ personality (“Germans are not different”). Ordinary people are capable of following orders to hurt others, even when this causes them distress.
    • Factors that led to obedience
      • Yale University is a prestigious institution – represents authority, respect and high standards (unlikely to allow anything unethical to occur).
      • Experimenter wore a white coat – represents authority, scientific knowledge
      • Study seemed to have a worthy cause – to learn about memory
      • The victim/learner had given consent (experiment wasn’t conducted against his will)
      • The participant (teacher) had volunteered and made a commitment
      • The participant was paid and felt obliged
      • The shocks were painful but not dangerous. 
    • Results of experiment 1
      Experiment 1: All teachers (40/40 or 100%) gave shocks up to the 300-volt level, 14 (35%) teachers stopped between 300v and 375v and 26 teachers (65%) continued to the highest level, 450 v.
    • Results of experiment 2
      Experiment 2:  25/40 (62.5%)  of teachers gave shocks up to 450v.
      These findings completely contradicted the predicted results that 4% would reach 450 volts. (Milgram had surveyed groups of people from different backgrounds to predict how far the average American citizen would go in giving shocks). 
      During the experiment, participants were observed to protest, twitch nervously and show signs of anxiety. Of those who refused to go on, some got angry and some simply got up from their chairs and indicated they wanted to leave the lab.
    • What false aim were the ppts told?
      It was a test of learning - the effect of punishment on memory
    • Standardised responses in experiment 2
      -Learner - 3/4 of the word task answers were given incorrectly (exactly the same every time).
      In Experiment 2 – Learner responded verbally: 75 v (grunts), 150 v (‘Experimenter get me out of here’), 300 v (screams and refused to continue), 330 v (no response).These were all pre-recorded responses (exactly the same every time).
    • What was said when the teacher hesitated giving more shocks to Mr Wallace?
      If the ‘teacher’ hesitated the experimenter said:  “Please continue” or “It is absolutely essential that you continue”. If the ‘teacher’ said the learner clearly did not want to continue, the ‘experimenter’ said:
       “Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.”  
      If the teacher still refused to go on, then that trial of the experiment was ended.
    • Methodology - strength
      There were 40 American males from a range of occupations and ages which is a fairly large sample. Therefore the findings that people do show destructive obedience can be generalised to obedience levels amongst American males
    • Objectivity - strength
      Both quantitative data (voltage levels) and qualitative observations (behavioural responses such as twitching) were recorded. This is good scientific research as it provides both objective (quantitative) and in-depth (qualitative) data analysis
      Both quantitative data (voltage levels) and qualitative observations (behavioural responses such as twitching) were recorded. This is good scientific research as it provides both objective (quantitative) and in-depth (qualitative) data analysis. 
    • Volunteer sampling - weakness
      Volunteer sampling was used (advert). Participants may have been more compliant (obedient) in character than others in American society and were therefore not a representative sample. Therefore, findings that individuals show destructive obedience can’t be generalised to wider American society as other personalities may be naturally less obedient.
    • Reliability - strength
      The procedure was highly standardised e.g. each participant was briefed in the same was, given the same instructions and electric shock apparatus and the same verbal probs. This makes the experiment highly replicable and therefore reliable.
    • Ecological validity - weakness
      Giving someone electric shocks is not ordinary everyday life behaviour (lacks mundane realism/task validity). Therefore the findings about obedience levels do not represent real life behaviour.
    See similar decks