milgram

• background-milgram

  • believed german ppl during ww2 were genetically more obedient
  • wanted to know how Germans, and Nazis were able to commit such atrocities
  • Holocaust happened because people were following orders (a large amount of them)
• aims of milgram

  • to investigate whether ppts would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person
• sample of milgram

  • self-selected, volunteered via an advert in a newspaper near yale university
  • paid $4.50 for just showing up (and get it no matter what)
  • consisted of 40 male ppts from various occupational and educational backgrounds
  • aged between 20 and 50
  • excluded students due to pilot study
• method of milgram

  • used an independent measures design (all took part in one condition so no control group)
  • controlled observation (not lab but in a lab)
• procedure of milgram

  • on arrival, greeted by man in lab coat and explained they would be taking part in a study about learning and memory (lie)
  • introduced to another person who was the other ppt (confederate)
  • learner or teacher
  • learner (confederate) mentioned a heart condition
  • if answered wrong - 'electric shock' and up 15v for every wrong answer
• procedure (2) milgram

  • audio recording of comments played on answering
  • 300v learner banging on the wall and screaming in agony
  • after 300v learner refused to answer
  • and told to shock leaner anyway
  • ended at 450v or refused to continue from 300v and debriefed
• results of milgram


  • asked 14 undergrads to predict results (very wrong)
  • expecting no more than 3% of ppts to continue to 450v
  • reality - 65% of ppts continued to 450v and 100% continued to 300v
  • 5/40 refused to obey after 300, and 4 more administered one more shock and then refused
  • 2/40 refused at 330v, 1/40 at 345, 1/40 at 360, 1/40 at 375
  • total - 14/40 ppts defied experimenter
  • quantitative - amount of shocks
  • qualitative - comments recorded
  • 3/40 ppts had full-blown uncontrollable seizures
• research methods- milgram

  • controlled lab environment

  strengths

  • variables, like shock levels, are easier to control in lab than in more natural environment
  • in a natural environment, extraneous variables like a ringing phone might distract the ppts and affect their obedience

  weaknesses

  • as in a lab, ppts are aware that their behaviour is being studied and creates demand characteristics meaning the ppts adjust their behaviour to work with the purpose of the study e.g. obedience
• ethnocentrism of milgram

  • only Americans were involved
  • and America is regarded as an individualistic culture - concerned more on personal needs
  • so the findings of this study may not explain obedience in non-Western collectivist cultures
• sampling bias of milgram

  • ppts were American males

  strengths

  • included men from a range of occupations and educational backgrounds - rep. the target population
  • findings of study were generalisable to the wider American population

  weaknesses

  • there may be important gender differences which limit the generalisability of the results
• ethics of milgram

  • deception - ppts were told study was about learning + electric shocks were real
  • distrust in ppts and researchers - led to harming reputation of psychology
  • deprived the right to give informed consent
  • exposed to psychological harm - many were very distressed by the experience
  • debriefed at the end
• validity of milgram

  • did ppts acc believe they were delivering shocks?- threatens meaningfulness of results
  • interpretation of results- milgram believed ppl were obedient but analysis by haslam showed ppts only continued for 3 prods all ppts given prod 4 disobeyed-> challenging conclusions bc when they were told to blindly obey they didn't