Obedience- Milgram

• Baseline Procedure: Milgram

  Male p's aged 20-50, volunteered via newspaper advert. The Learner ('Mr Wallace') was strapped to a chair and wired, The Teacher (the participant) was given a small shock to convey realness- this was the only real shock of the study. Learners had to remember word pairs, if incorrect they were shocked increasingly (15V-450V), switches labelled 'slight' to 'severe' shock. At 300V Learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to next question. At 315V, Learner pounded on the wall again but was silent for the rest of the procedure.
• Baseline Procedure: Milgram; Teacher wanting to stop

  If the Teacher was hesitant and wanted to stop, and Experimenter (Authority Figure) used 4 prods before it was officially ended:

  1. Please continue/go on.
  2. The experiment requires you to continue.
  3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
  4. You have no other choice, you must go on.
• Baseline Findings: Milgram

  Every participant delivered all shocks up to 300V. 12.5% stopped at 300V ('intense shock'). 65% continued to the highest level at 450V so they were fully obedient.

  Milgram also gained qualitative data, including observations- p's showed signs of extreme tension; sweating, trembling, biting lip, groaning, dig fingernails into palms, and 3 had uncontrollable seizures.
• Other Data: Milgram

  Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students what their prediction of p's behaviour would be. They estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V. This shows the findings were unexpected- students underestimated how obedient people would be.

  All p's were debriefed and assured their behaviour was entirely normal; they were sent follow-up questionnaires and 84% said they were glad to have taken part.
• Conclusions: Milgram

  Milgram concluded that German people weren't different, the American p's in his study were willing to obey orders, even when they may harm others. He suspected there were certain factors that encouraged obedience- so decided to conduct further variations to identify influences.
• AO3: Research Support

  Study was replicated in a French documentary. Beauvois et al focuses on a game show made for the programme- p's in the game believed they were contestants for a new show called 'The Game of Death'. They were paid to give fake electric shocks to confederates when ordered by the presenter, in front of a studio audience. 80% of p's delivered the maximum shock of 460V to an 'unconscious' man. P's behaviour was almost identical to that observed by Milgram (nervous laughter, nail-biting, and signs of anxiety).
• AO3: Low Internal Validity

  Milgram reported that 75% of p's believed the shocks were real. However, Orne and Holland argued that p's behaved in this way as they didn't believe in the set up, they were play-acting. They listened to tapes and reported that only half believed the shocks were real. 2/3s of these p's were disobedient; suggesting p's may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study.
• AO3: Counterpoint to Low Internal Validity

  Sheridan and King conducted a study like Milgram's; p's (all students) had to give shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter. Despite the distress from the animal, 54% of men and 100% of women gave the fatal shock. This suggests the findings are genuine as people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.
• AO3: Ethical Issues

  P's in the study were deceived- they thought the allocation of roles was randomly assigned, but it was fixed. They also thought the shocks were real. Milgram dealt with this through doing a debrief. However, Baumrind criticises Milgram for deceiving p's- she objects because she believes that deception in psychological research can have serious consequences for p's and researchers. Deception prevents p's from providing fully informed consent, meaning they are leaving themselves vulnerable to psychological harm as they are unaware what they are consenting to.
• AO3: Alternative Interpretation of Findings

  Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified. Haslam showed that p's obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first 3 prods. However, every p given the 4th prod without exception disobeyed. According to the SIT, p's only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research- but when told to blindly obey to an authority figure, they refused. This is then a more valid explanation; when they 'identified with the science', this was the reason for their obedience.