Milgram

• Psych Being Investigated

  social pressure: direct influence, social approval and reward

  -created by obedience to authority can have negative conseq

  destructive obedience: potential to cause psych/phys harm

  WW1: germans possesed defective traits made extreme levels of obedience (germ are dif hypothesis)
• Background

  Stanley Milgram, Jewish fam wanted to challenge germ are dif hyp

  -proposed situational explanation for obedience under orders of authority figure

  -asked colleagues about procedure: believed less than 3% of par would deliver maximum voltage shock (strong pun)
• Aim

  investigate how obedient individuals would be to orders received from a person in authority

  -whether people would show obedience even when it would result in phys harm to another person (destructive obedience)
• Method

  controlled observation in laboratory setting (variables controlled, beh recorded)

  -contained NO manipulated (IV) variables; same procedure, no control

  levels of obedience measured through observation

  -operationalized w a max voltage

  -noted par body language and verbal comments/protests made
• Sample

  newspaper advertisement used to recruit 40 men, betw ages 20-50yrs (volunteer sample)

  -men living in New Haven, different backgrounds and occupation ranges
• Procedure

  -paid 4.50 to participate, took place at Yale University (legitimate)

  introduced to another man (stooge/confederate)

  -asked to draw pieces of paper for roles, always allocated the teacher

  -presented w shock generator voltage readings 15v to 450v ascending order

  -told painful, not dangerous; example of 45v (never shocked)

  Authority figure: 31 yr old teacher wore a grey technician coat beh seriously
• Memory task

  read pairs of words to learner, testing recognition

  -made a mistake, told to shock, increasing each time by 15v

  -until 300v reached learner remained silent till 315v when learner began to bang wall in protest to stopping response

  par protested = VERBAL prods (standard way): please go on/please continue/experiment requires that you continue/it is abs essential you continue/you have no other choice you must go on

  complete when par refused to give any more shocks or reached maximum 450v

  -one way mirrors used, interviewed and deception fully explained
• Results

  mean estimate of pain 450v: 13.42/14 believed causing serious pain

  protests: 'i dont think i can go on' 'ill hurt his heart'

  -verbal prods generally persuaded par to continue

  -ended, showed visible signs relief , some calm

  
  

  maximum voltage 450: 26 par

  255-300: 5

  315-360: 8

  375-420: 1
• Conclusion

  supports idea of situational explanation for obedience

  -identifies # of factors contributed to high levels of obedience perceived legitimacy: professional academic env

  encouraged obedience: paid to participate, obliged to continue

  + learner freely volunteered

  
  

  2 main conclusions:

  -individuals are far more obedient to authority than expected

  -despite high levels of obedience, people find the experience of carrying destructive acts under orders authority stressful

  (due to conflict betw 2 imp soc phenomena: need to obey authority and need to avoid harming others)
• Strengths

  controlled observation: control extraneous variables in env (age, appearance of stooge)

  standardized proc: verbal prods increased reliability, same experience

  realistic design of electric shock generator + example shock improved validity

  -ensured par were convinced study real, actions mattered
• Weaknesses

  low generalizability: came from same local area and were all men

  -did select par in range ages and backgrounds (greater external validity)

  -those even w professional backgrounds (pos of power) suceptible to obeying commands of authority figure

  
  

  quantitative data: measure of obedience through voltage shocks delivered

  offered objective record, easy to compare reach conclusions

  -recorded voltages did not fully explain experience of participants

  
  

  qualitative data: phys/verbal behavior more subjective and understanding

  -interviews after explain some of par behavior
• Ethics

  didnt give informed consent: (told study was on memory & punishment)

  -repeatedly deceived (tricked into believing had chosen role of teacher by chance)

  
  

  able to exercise right to withdraw, some did partway

  -many felt as though they had to keep going out of obligation to research and result of verbal prods

  
  

  not protected from psych harm: underwent visible/extreme distress

  -debriefed told true aim of study, reassured had not caused harm

  -potential for lasting neg consequences to par