Milgram

• Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
• Milgram wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures, as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II
• Participants were recruited for a controlled experiment investigating "learning" (re: ethics: deception)
• The "learner" (Mr. Wallace) was a confederate who was strapped to a chair with electrodes
• The "teacher" was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner for each wrong answer, increasing the shock level each time
• The teacher was given prods to continue administering shocks if they hesitated
• 65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450 volts, and all participants continued to 300 volts
• Ethical concerns in Milgram's obedience research:

  • Baumrind criticized the lack of informed consent
  • Participants believed they were shocking a real person
  • Participants exposed to extremely stressful situations
  • Milgram debriefed participants after the experiment
  • Participants were assured that their behavior was common
  • Milgram misrepresented debriefing details in some cases
• Right to withdrawal in Milgram's study:

  • Participants were discouraged from withdrawing through verbal prods
  • Milgram argued that orders were necessary for the study on obedience
  • 35% of participants chose to withdraw despite the prods
• Milgram's study used a controlled observation design, where subjects' behavior was observed and recorded in a laboratory setting
• The independent variable (IV) in Milgram's study can be considered as authority, while the dependent variable (DV) was the level of obedience measured by the maximum shock administered
• Obedience was operationally defined as the maximum shock or voltage administered before refusing to continue
• Milgram's study was conducted at Yale University in America
• The sample for Milgram's study consisted of 40 male participants aged between 20 to 50, recruited through volunteer sampling using newspaper advertisements
• Two roles: teacher and learner, hat with two slips of paper both saying "teacher" for deception
• At 300 volts, the learner banged the wall, and at 315 volts, they repeated the wall banging
• After 315 volts, the learner no longer responded or banged on the wall
• If subjects still refused after the prods, the experiment was called off
• Predictions were made by 14 Yale seniors and Milgram's colleagues about the obedience levels of participants
• Most predictions suggested that only a minority of people would go all the way to the maximum 450 volts
• Participants showed signs of extreme tension, nervous laughter, and some even had uncontrollable seizures
• Participants made remarks of discomfort and guilt when administering shocks, showing signs of stress and tension
• 26 out of 40 participants went all the way to the maximum 450 volts, despite signs of distress and defiance
• Participants who went all the way to 450 volts showed extreme stress and similar fears to those who defied the experimenter
• Military example: disobeying a direct order can result in severe consequences like death
• Conflict between experimental demands to continue shocking and victim's demands for relief from suffering
• Reliability:

  • Standardization ensures the experiment is reliable
  • Verbal prods were standardized with specific scripts
  • Switches and voltages were consistent for all participants
• Validity:

  • Shock generator looked authentic, adding to the validity
  • Clear operational definition of obedience from 0 to 30 switches
  • Objective data like the measurement of obedience adds to accuracy
• Sample:

  • Small sample of 40 males from the same area, not generalizable
  • Volunteer sampling used, not representative
  • Wide variety of ages and job backgrounds in the sample
• Data:

  • Objective data like the measurement of obedience
  • Subjective data from interviews and observations helps explain participants' experiences
• Ethics:

  • Deception used throughout the study
  • Strong language in prods may be considered unethical
  • Participants suffered extreme psychological distress
  • Lack of follow-up on long-term effects after the study
• 𝘽𝘼𝙎𝙀𝙇𝙄𝙉𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝘾𝙀𝘿𝙐𝙍𝙀:

  40 American men volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory. When each volunteer arrived at Milgram's lab, he was introduced to another participant (a confederate of Milgram's). They drew lots to see who would be the 'Teacher' and who would be the 'Learner'. The draw was fixed so that the real participant was always the Teacher. An 'Experimenter' was also involved (a confederate in a grey lab coat).

  (𝟭)
• 𝘽𝘼𝙎𝙀𝙇𝙄𝙉𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝘾𝙀𝘿𝙐𝙍𝙀:

  The study aimed to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (the Experimenter) ordered the participant (Teacher) to give an increasingly strong electric shock to a Learner located in a different room (in 15V steps up to 450V). The shocks were fake but the Teacher did not know this.

  (𝟮)
• 𝘽𝘼𝙎𝙀𝙇𝙄𝙉𝙀 𝙌𝙐𝘼𝙉𝙏𝙄𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 𝙁𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝙉𝙂𝙎:

  Every participant delivered shocks up to 300V.

  12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300V ('intense shock').

  65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450V (they were fully obedient).
• 𝘽𝘼𝙎𝙀𝙇𝙄𝙉𝙀 𝙌𝙐𝘼𝙇𝙄𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 𝙁𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝙉𝙂𝙎:

  Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as the participants showing signs of extreme tension: many of them were seen to 'sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands'; three even had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'.
• Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants' behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of participants would continue to 450V. This shows that the findings were unexpected; the students underestimated how obedient the participants would be.
• All participants in the baseline study were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire - 84% said they were glad to have participated.
• 𝘾𝙊𝙉𝘾𝙇𝙐𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎:

  Milgram concluded that German people are not 'different'. The American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person. He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these (the variation studies).
• 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘:

  Right To Withdraw:

  Some participants found it hard to withdraw because they were being ordered by the experimenter to continue giving electric shocks.

  𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗘:

  It is not clear that Milgram did anything to address this issue. He may have hoped that debriefing would be enough to overcome any negative consequences associated with continuing. He might also have argued that the fact some participants did withdraw (disobey) indicates that all of them could have done the same. But neither of these is a substitute for dealing with the issue.
• 𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘:

  Informed consent:

  The participants could not give their fully informed consent because they didn't know what the procedure involved. This is because several aspects of the procedure were withheld from/misrepresented to them.

  𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗘:

  It is argued that consent does not have to be fully informed; many psychological studies would be impossible because they rely on the participants being unaware of what is really happening. This should only occur when consequences aren't serious. However, many of Milgram's participants were visibly stressed and anxious.