Milgram's obedience study

• Milgrim's participants believed that the learner received increasingly severe shocks as they progressed through the experiment.
• Milgram's participants were told they were taking part in a memory test, where one participant (the 'teacher') had to administer electric shocks to another participant (the 'learner').
• Milgram's participants were told they were taking part in an experiment on memory, where they had to administer electric shocks to another participant (who was actually an actor) if they made mistakes.
• • The participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item - that the shock would help them to learn.
  • Shocks were increased in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts.
  • The participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks.
• • In response to a string of incorrect answers from the learners, the participants obediently and repeatedly shocked them.
  • The confederate learners cried out for help, begged the participant teachers to stop, and even complained of heart trouble.
  • Yet, when the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive.
• Variations:

  • When the setting of the experiment was moved to an office building, the highest shock rate dropped to 48%.
  • When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the highest shock rate dropped to 40%.
  • When the teachers’ and learners’ hands were touching, the highest shock rate dropped to 30%.
  • When the researcher gave the orders by phone, the rate dropped to 23%.
  • when the humanity of the person being shocked was increased, obedience decreased.
  • Similarly, when the authority of the experimenter decreased, so did obedience.
• When the researcher told the participant-teachers to continue the shock, 65% of the participants continued the shock to the maximum voltage and to the point that the learner became unresponsive.
• EVAL pt 1 - methodological

  • Strict control of variables - laboratory experiment - able to establish cause and effect.
  • Low ecological validity - participants were in an artificial situation (they wouldn't naturally be in a situation of shocking people)- therefore the study has low ecological validity (can't be generalised easily).
• EVAL pt 2 - ethical

  • Deception - participants weren't able to give informed consent because they didn't know the real nature of the experiment. They weren't told they could withdraw.
  • Lack of protection - participants were visibly stressed during the study - In Milgram's defence, no formal ethical guidelines existed at the time.
• EVAL - pt 3 - methodological

  • (Potential) low internal validity - internal validity is a measure of whether results are just affected by changes in the independent variable in a cause-and-effect relationship or other variables too. Participants might have known they weren't actually inflicting real shocks and just gone along with what the experimenter wanted - demand characteristics - Milgram backed up his results by saying that participants' displays of stress showed that they thought the experiment was genuine.
• EVAL - methodological criticism

  Orne and Holland - believed participants delievered shocks because they knew they were not real

  HOWEVER, 75% of participants in post-study interviews said they believed the shocks were real - shows there was high/some internal validity
• Milgram said three factors may have caused his participants to stay in the agentic state:

  Insistence of authority - the experimenter told participants to continue even when they displayed signs of stress.

  Pressure of location - the study was conducted in a university. Participants would see the experimenter as a legitimate authority.

  Unwillingness to disrupt - participants might have felt like they couldn't stop the experiment because they'd already been paid
• Situational variables in Milgram's study 1974

  • Proximity - when the teacher and the learner were in the same room, obedience levels dropped from 62.5% to 40%; when the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto the shock plate, obedience dropped further to 30%
  • Location - when the location changed from Yale Univeristy to a run down office block, obedience levels dropped from 62.5% to 47.5%
• Situational factors affecting obedience

  Uniforms - Bickman

  • ordering people to move out the way, loan a coin to a stranger or pick up rubbish
  • civilian clothes - 19%
  • milkman - 14%
  • security guard - 38%
• Social support - dissenter

  In Milgram's study, when two confederates who were paired with real participants left, saying that they wouldn’t continue, only 10% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock.

  So the creation of disobedient group norms puts more pressure on participants to conform.
• In Milgram's study, when two confederates who were paired with real participants left, saying that they wouldn’t continue, only 10% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock.

  So the creation of disobedient group norms puts more pressure on participants to conform.
• Method:


  • 40 male volunteers led to believe that they were participating in a study to improve learning and memory
  • Participants were shown how to use a device that they were told delivered electric shocks of different intensities to the learners
  • Participants were told to shock the learners if they gave a wrong answer to a test item - that the shock would help them to learn
  • Shocks were increased in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts
  • Participants did not know that the learners were confederates and that the confederates did not actually receive shocks