obedience

• Milgram obedience study procedure: 40 American male participants told they were in a study of memory. A confederate was always a learner while the participant was the teacher. An experimenter (another confederate) wore a lab coat and the teacher could hear but not see the learner. The teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time he made a mistake. The shocks were fake but made to look increasingly severe. If the teacher wish to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal ‘prod’ to continue
• Milgram obedience study findings: 12.5% (5) participants stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts (highest level). Participants showed signs of extreme tension. 3 had uncontrollable seizures
• Milgram obedience study conclusions: We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else. Certain situational factors encourage obedience
• One strength is that replications have supported Milgram’s research findings. In a french TV documentary/game show, contestants were paid to give fake electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors). 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants. This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority
• One limitation is that Milgram’s study lacked internal validity. Orne and Holland argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake so they were play acting. This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the particpants believed the shocks were real. This suggests that participants may have been responding to demands characteristics.
• One limitation is that the findings are not due to blind obedience. Haslam et al. found that every participant given the first 3 prods obeyed the experimenter, but those given the 4th prod disobey. According to social identity theory, the first 3 prods required identification with the science of the research but the 4th prod required blind obedience. This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority