Milgram's research

• baseline procedure

  • 40 US men volunteered to take part in a study they thought was on memory.
  • each participant introduced to another 'participant' -> confederate.
  • drew lots to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner but it was fixed so the real participant was always the teacher.
  • experimenter ordered teacher to give shock to the learner who was in a different room if they answered wrong. Shocks were fake but learner didn't know.
  • went up to 450 volts
• baseline findings

  • every participant delivered shocks up until 300 volts
  • 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts
  • 65% continued to 450 volts -> they were fully obedient
  • qualitative data collected, particpants showed signs of extreme tension
  • sweating, seizures, lip biting
• Strength - research support

  Findings were replicated in a French documentary.

  Focused on a game show and they were paid to give electric shocks (fake) to other participants.

  80% of participants gave the maximum shock of 460 volts

  Had the same signs of anxiety as Milgram's study
• Limitation - low internal validity

  may not have tested what it intended to test

  Milgram reported 75% of his participants believed the shocks were genuine.

  Researchers argued that they were 'play-acting'.

  Responded to demand characteristics

  Perry's research confirms this as she listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and only about half believed the shocks were real.
• Counterpoint - low internal validity

  Sheridan + King

  Conducted procedure like Milgram's using puppies.

  The shocks were real.

  54% of the men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock.

  Suggests Milgram's results were genuine.
• Limitation - alternative interpretation of findings.

  Haslam et al

  Found that participants only obeyed when they were given when the prod to continue identified with the experiment. Otherwise they disobeyed.

  Shows that the conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified, justifies social identity theory.
• what are the situational variables?

  • proximity
  • location
  • uniform
• proximity

  • teacher and learner were in the same room
  • obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
  • 'touch variation' teacher had to force the learner's hand on an electroshock plate if he refused.
  • obedience dropped to 30%
  • 'remote instruction' experimenter left the room and gave instructions via telephone.
  • obedience reduced to 20.5%
• proximity explanation

  Decreased proximity allowed people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
• location

  • Milgram conducted the experiment in a run-down office block rather than Yale university.
  • Obedience fell to 47.5%
• location explanation

  University gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority therefore they obeyed as they perceived the experimenter to share this legitimacy.

  But, obedience still quite high in the office block
• uniform

  • baseline study = experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority.
  • Uniform variation had the experimenter leave due to a phone call and was replaced by an 'member of the public' in everyday clothes.
  • Obedience rate dropped to 20%
• uniform explanation

  Uniforms encourage obedience as they are recognised as symbols of authority.

  We accept someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience.
• Strength - Research support for situational variables

  Bickman

  Field experiment in NYC

  Had 3 confederates dress in different outfits -> jacket and tie, milkman's outfit, security guards uniform.

  Confederates stood on the street and asked people to perform tasks e.g. pick up litter.

  People twice as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket and tie.

  Situational variables have a powerful effect on obedience.
• Strength - cross-cultural replications

  Meeus + Raaijmakers

  Used a more realistic procedure with Dutch participants

  Participants ordered to say stressful things to someone desperate for a job.

  90% obeyed.

  Replicated Milgram's findings for proximity