Milgram's research into obedience

• What was the aim of Milgram’s obedience study (1963)?

  To investigate how far people would obey an authority figure when instructed to harm another person.
• How many participants took part in Milgram’s original study?

  40 male participants aged between 20 and 50.
• What percentage of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock in Milgram’s study?

  65% of participants delivered the full 450 volts.
• At what voltage did all participants continue to?

  100% of participants continued to at least 300 volts.
• What did many participants show signs of during the experiment?

  Nervousness, sweating, trembling, stuttering, and even seizures, indicating high levels of stress.
• What did Milgram conclude about obedience?

  People are likely to obey authority figures, even if it means harming others, especially when placed in a structured situation.
• What prods did the researcher give?

  1. Please continue
  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
• Where was Milgram’s study conducted?

  At Yale University, in a controlled laboratory setting.
• What was the role of the learner in Milgram’s study?

  The learner was a confederate (Mr. Wallace) who pretended to be shocked but was not actually harmed.
• A strength of Milgram’s study is its high validity, supported by real-world evidence, such as Hofling et al.’s (1966) research on nurses and doctors. In Hofling’s study, 22 nurses were instructed by an unknown doctor to administer an overdose of medication, which was against hospital rules. Despite the clear breach of protocol, 21 out of the 22 nurses (95%) obeyed the doctor’s orders. This real-world example of obedience supports Milgram’s findings, demonstrating that people are likely to obey authority figures even when it goes against their personal or professional judgement. Hofling’s study shows that the obedience observed in Milgram’s laboratory setting is not limited to an artificial context but is also applicable to real-life situations, enhancing the external validity of Milgram’s conclusions.
• How does Hofling et al.'s study support the validity of Milgram's research?

  Hofling’s study shows that people obey authority figures in real-life situations, similar to Milgram’s findings in a laboratory setting.
• What was the procedure in Hofling et al.’s study?

  Nurses were instructed by an unknown doctor to administer an overdose of medication, which was against hospital rules.
• What percentage of nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders in Hofling et al.’s study?

  95% of nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders, despite the violation of hospital protocol.
• Why does Hofling et al.’s study enhance the external validity of Milgram’s findings?

  It demonstrates that obedience to authority figures is applicable to real-life situations, not just artificial lab settings.
• A strength of Milgram’s study is its support from later research, such as the puppy shock study by Schaefer et al. (2012). In this study, participants were asked to administer electric shocks to a puppy in a procedure similar to Milgram's. The results showed that, despite the puppy’s distress, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks when instructed to do so by an authority figure. This provides further evidence that people are likely to obey authority figures even when it involves causing harm to others. The puppy shock study strengthens the validity of Milgram’s findings by showing that obedience to authority is a consistent human behaviour, not limited to human subjects in laboratory settings.
• How does the puppy shock study (Schaefer et al., 2012) support Milgram’s research?

  It provides evidence that people will obey authority figures even when causing harm, similar to Milgram’s findings with human participants.
• What was the procedure in the puppy shock study by Schaefer et al. (2012)?

  Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a puppy, similar to Milgram’s shock paradigm.
• What was the outcome of the puppy shock study?

  The majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the puppy despite its visible distress.
• How does the puppy shock study strengthen the validity of Milgram’s findings?

  It shows that obedience to authority figures is a consistent human behaviour, even in non-human subjects, supporting the generalisability of Milgram’s conclusions.
• A major criticism of Milgram’s study is its unethical nature, particularly due to the psychological harm caused to participants. Participants were deceived into believing they were administering real shocks to another person, which led to significant emotional distress, including signs of anxiety, sweating, and trembling. Many participants showed clear signs of stress, and some were visibly upset after the experiment, yet they were not fully informed about the nature of the study before consenting. Additionally, Milgram did not protect participants from the psychological impact, as they were not adequately debriefed during or immediately after the study. This failure to protect participants from harm and the lack of fully informed consent raise serious ethical concerns, highlighting how the study violated modern ethical guidelines regarding the well-being of participants.
• What is a major ethical criticism of Milgram’s study?

  The psychological harm caused to participants due to deception and distress.
• How were participants deceived in Milgram’s study?

  They were led to believe they were administering real electric shocks to another person.
• What signs of distress did participants show during Milgram’s study?

  Many participants exhibited anxiety, sweating, trembling, and visible signs of stress.
• A significant criticism of Milgram’s study comes from Orne and Holland (1968), who argued that the study lacked internal validity. They suggested that participants knew the shocks were not real, meaning that the results could not be generalized to real-world situations. Orne and Holland argued that the extreme stress participants experienced was likely caused by the artificiality of the situation and their awareness that they were part of an experiment. This undermines the claim that Milgram was measuring genuine obedience to authority, as participants may have been acting in response to demand characteristics, such as wanting to please the experimenter. As a result, Orne and Holland’s criticism highlights concerns about the internal validity of Milgram’s conclusions, suggesting that the findings may not reflect true obedience.
• How many went to 450 volts (the max)?

  65%
• How many went to 300 volts?

  100%
• What did Orne and Holland suggest about participants' awareness in Milgram's study?

  They suggested participants knew the shocks were not real, which could affect the results.