Milgram and Burger

• What are the three main assumptions in social psychology?

  1. The effect of interaction between individuals
  2. The effect of being in groups within society
  3. The effect of the social situation
• Describe the social assumption: the effect of interaction between individuals:


  • Individuals interact with one another, affecting each other's behaviour
  • People send signals to others by the way they look and behave
• Describe the social assumption: the effect of being in groups within society:

  • assumes that people live within a culture and society
  • behaviour is affected by their experiences within a society
  • we are affected by how others see us and the roles we are allocated
  • if we are given a role, we are likely to fulfil expectations attached to that role
• Describe the social assumption: the effect of the social situation:

  • The social situation you are in also affects your behaviour
  • e.g. you may talk differently with your friends than you would with your family
• Define obedience

  • Obedience is the following of orders from a real or perceived authority figure
  • An example of obedience is the SS soldiers following orders to exterminate Jews and other persecuted groups in the Holocaust
• What was the aim of Milgram's experiment?

  • 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 were the participants obtained for Milgram's study?

  • by responding to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale university
• Who were the participants in Milgram's study?

  • 40 males aged 20 to 50 years
  • participants represented a wide range of occupations
• How were the participants encouraged to participate in Milgram's study?

  • they were paid $4.50 for coming to the lab and participating, regardless of what happened after they arrived
• Who played the role of the experimenter in Milgram's study?


  • 31 year old Biology teacher
  • wore a technician's coat
  • appeared stern and emotionless throughout the experiment
• Who played the role of the learner in Milgram's study?

  • Mr Wallace
  • 47-year old accountant
  • trained for the role
  • mild-mannered and likeable
• Describe Milgram's phoney shock generator?

  • 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts
  • to improve authenticity, written labels were clearly indicated for groups of switches: "slight", "moderate", "strong" shocks .etc. two switches after this were marked XXX
  • buzzers, flashing lights, moving dials
• How were the administration of the electric shocks justified?

  • participants were told that the aim of the study was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning
• How was the participant always the teacher and Mr Wallace always the learner?

  • 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 and Mr Wallace was always the learner
• How did the electric chair improve the authenticity of Milgram's experiment?

  • learner was strapped in an electric chair
  • straps were to prevent "excessive movement" while learner was being shocked
  • the effect was to make it impossible for him to escape the situation
• How did the electrode (paste) improve the authenticity of Milgram's experiment?

  • An electrode was attached to the learner's wrist and electrode paste was applied to avoid "blisters and burns"
• How were the shocks deemed authentic?

  • participant heard experimenter tell learner "although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage"
• Describe the procedure?

  • ppt in a room with shock generator, read word pairs to learner
  • learner asked to memorise word pairs
  • ppt tests learner by giving 1 of the words in a pair with 4 others
  • communicate via one-way intercom
  • learner indicates which of the 4 words was originally paired with first word
  • learner's answer communicated by pressing one of 4 switches which illuminated a light on top of the shock generator
• How were right/wrong answers given by the learner treated?

  • correct answer = teacher moved onto next word on list
  • wrong answer = ppt told learner right answer, give shock
  • for every subsequent incorrect answer, ppt moved 1 switch up the scale of shocks (15 Volts higher)
• How was no answer given treated?

  • ppt waited 5-10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer
  • usual shocks were given
• Explain the "prods":

  • if the participant asked advice from the experimenter, or some other indication that they didn't want to go on, they would be encouraged with a sequence of standardised "prods"
  • the prods were made in sequence i.e. only if prod 1 was unsuccessful, would they move onto prod 2
  • the experiment was terminated if the participant continued to disobey after prod 4
• When did the experiment end?

  • when 450 V was administered/ ppt walked out
• What is a defiant participant?

  • a ppt who breaks off at any point prior to the highest shock level of 450 Volts
• What is an obedient participant?

  • ppt who obeys up to 450 Volts
• How were the sessions observed?

  • filmed
  • notes taken by observers through an observation mirror
  • time in between and duration of shocks were timed
• How were the participants debriefed after?

  • open-ended questions
  • psychometric measures to test that ppts was not harmed
  • -participant also reunited with victim to show they weren't harmed, their behaviour was explained as normal
  • these ensured the ppts left the lab in a state of wellbeing
• Describe the main results?

  • 65% of the participants obeyed and gave shocks up to 450 Volts, 35% stopped sometime before 450 Volts
• Describe the signs of nervousness and tension?


  • sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, dug fingernails into flesh
  • 14/40 ppts had nervous laughing fits
  • 3 ppts had full-blown uncontrollable seizures

  -participants took pains to make sure they weren't sadistic, the laughter didn't mean they enjoyed shocking the learner
• Describe the post-experimental interview:

  • ppts were asked "How painful to the learner were the last few shocks you administered to him"
  • 14 point scale from 1 "not at all painful" to 14 "extremely painful", mean was 13.42
• What did Milgram conclude from the experiment?

  • social influence is strong and people obey orders even when it causes them distress
• Name a few features of the experiment which explains why such high levels of obedience occurred?

  • experiment was done at prestigious Yale university, giving procedure credibility and respect
  • being paid increased the sense of obligation
  • ppt volunteered to take part in the experiment, so felt similarly obligated
• Milgram's study was standardised:

  • 2 confederates were played by the same actors
  • number and timing of the learner's mistakes was the same for every participant: 3 wrong to 1 right answer
  • therefore, study is replicable
  • Burger (2009) found similar rates of obedience
  • Milgram's results are reliable
• Milgram's study was unethical:

  • Baumrind (1964) argued that just because someone volunteers for a study it does not take away the researchers 'responsibilities towards them
  • Baumrind felt that the level of psychological harm was unacceptable
  • Perry 2012 claims some ppts left the study believing the learned died, although Milgram claimed to have debriefed the ppts
• How was Milgram's findings applied to real-life (Tarnow 2000)?

  • Tarnow drew parallels between behaviour in Milgram studies and cockpit
  • first officers are hesitant to question the captain even when their behaviour is putting others at risk
  • training first officers to challenge authority of the pilot could prevent up to 20% of plane crashes-
  • led to training to improve cockpit behaviour, potentially saving lives
• Why did Burger repeat the experiment?

  • to be more ethical
• How were the participant's protected in Burger's research:

  -2-step screening process to exclude potential ppts that may have a negative reaction to the study

  -ppts told 3 times in writing that they have the right to withdraw at anytime and would still receive $50 for participation

  -ppts were administered with a 15V sample shock - Milgram used 45V

  -no time passed between ending session and informing ppt that the learner received no shocks

  -clinical psychologist experimenter instructed to end the study if signs of excessive stress were shown
• Identify 4 features Burger thought may have contributed to the high levels of obedience in Milgram's research?

  1. obedience to authority
  2. gradual increase in demands
  3. limited sources of information in a novel situation
  4. responsibility not assigned or diffused
• How would obedience to authority have contributed to obedience?

  • the perceived expertise of the experimenter contributed to the ppt's decision to follow their instructions
  • experimenter presumably had knowledge about the procedure and went through many previous sessions, so ppts deferred to his judgement
• How would gradual increase in demands have contributed to obedience?

  • the gradual increase from 15V upwards forced a need for consistency in ppts, making it difficult for them to refuse pressing the next switch up
• How would limited sources of information in a novel situation have contributed to obedience?

  • Milgram's ppts had never been in a similar situation
  • they searched for information on how they ought to respond
  • the experimenter didn't react to the learners' cries and reassured ppts the shocks weren't dangerous
  • obedience rates would have dropped significantly if ppts were informed before the study that the vast majority of previous ppts refused to continue when they heard the learner's protests