Milgram

• found 40 male participants through newspaper ads and postal flyers. the ad said he was looking for participants for a memory study. the participants were aged between 20 and 50 and were in jobs ranging from unskilled to professional and were given $4.50 just for turning up.
• the ppts drew lots for their roles. a confederate, Mr Wallace was always the learner while the true participant was the learner. an experimenter wore a lab coat. ppts were told they could leave the study at any time.
• the learner was strapped to a chair in another room and wired with electrodes. the teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time he made a mistake on a task. the teachers were not told that the shocks were fake and that Mr Wallace was an actor.
• the shocks started at 15 volts and rose through 30 levels to 45 volts. at 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to the next question. after the 315 volt shock the learner pounded on the wall and gave no further response.
• when the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, he gave a standardised instruction 'absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'. if the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of four standard 'prods'.

  • (prod 1)- 'please continue' or 'please go on'
  • (prod 2)- 'the experiment requires you to continue'
  • (prod 3)- 'it is absolutely essential that you continue'
  • (prod 4)- 'you have no other choice, you must go on'
• no participant stopped below 300 volts.

  5 (12.5%) stopped at 300 volts

  65% continued to 450 volts.

  observations indicated that ppts showed signs of extreme tension; many were seen to 'sweat, tremble, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands. three had 'full blown uncontrollable seizures'
• Prior to the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the naïve participants behaviour. they estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts. Therefore the findings were unexpected.
• participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was normal. in a follow up questionnaire, 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated. 74% felt they had learned something of personal importance.
• Limitations

  -------------

  lacks internal validity

  • Holland and Orne (1968) suggested participants guessed the electric shocks were fake so Milgram was not testing what he intended to test.
  • However Sheridan and Kings (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy. 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
  • so the obedience on Milgram's study might be genuine. 70% of Milgram's participants believed the shocks were genuine.
• strength

  ---------

  has good external validity

  • Milgram argued that the lab based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real life authority relationships
  • Hofling et al (1966)- found that levels of obedience in nurses on a hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed)
  • therefore the process of obedience in Milgrams study can be generalised.
• in a French documentary contestants in a reality tv show were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered to by the host to other participants (actors)

  • found that 80% gave the maximum 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man. their behaviour was like that of Milgram's participants (signs of anxiety)
  • this supports Milgram's original conclusions about obedience and shows that his findings were not just a one off
• Obedience is about group identification. Milgram's ppts identified with the experimenter. when obedience levels fell, they identified with the victim.

  • Haslam and Reicher (2012) suggest that the first 3 prods are appeals for help with science and only the 4th prod demands obedience. every time this was used, the participant quit.
  • Participants did not give shocks due to obedience, but due to their identification with the experimenter as a scientist.
• Limitation- ethical issues

  Baumrind (1963) criticised Milgrams descriptions

  • participations believed the allocation of roles was random but it was fixed.
  • participants believed that the shocks were real. Baumrind objected because the description is a betrayal of trust that damaged the reputation of the psychologist and their research.
  • descriptions of participants may also make them less likely to volunteer for future research.
• research to support-

  • Bickman (1974)- had 3 confederates dress in different outfits- a jacket and a tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guards uniform. they stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or giving the confederate a coin for the parking meter.
  • people were found to be twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard, rather than the one dressed in a jacket and tie.
  • this supports milgrams conclusion that uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factor likely to impact obedience.