MILGRAM

• Milgram's methodology


  Create a situation to measure the process of obedience, even when the command required destructive behaviour
• Milgram's study


  • Conducted in a lab to control variables
  • Not an experiment, but a controlled observation
• Participant recruitment


  Placed an advert in the New Haven newspaper for participants to volunteer for a memory and learning experiment
• Participant characteristics


  • 40 males
  • Jobs varied from postal clerks to engineers
  • Different levels of educational backgrounds
  • Ages ranging from 20-40
• Participant payment


  Paid $4.50 which they were automatically paid on arrival
• Study location


  Conducted at Yale University
• Procedure


  • Study conducted at Yale University
  • Participants met the 'experimenter', a 31-year-old man dressed in a grey technician's coat
  • Another 'participant' was introduced, a mild-mannered and likeable 47-year-old accountant, Mr Wallace
  • Both men were accomplices of Milgram
• Participant roles


  1. Participants drew PAPER to decide their roles

  2. Roles were rigged, so the naïve participant was the teacher and Mr Wallace was the learner
• Experimental room


  • Learner was strapped into an 'electric chair' apparatus to prevent excessive movement
  • An electrode was placed on the learner's wrist and pasted to prevent blisters
• Sample shock


  1. Gave a sample shock (45 volts) to the "teacher"

  2. Asked to rate the voltage

  3. Whatever they guessed were told the voltage was lower
• Shock machine


  A machine with 30 switches, with 'shock' labels starting at 'slight shock' at 15 volts to 'intense shock' at 225 volts and finally 'XXX' at 450 volts, a potentially fatal shock
• Using the shock machine


  1. Pressing each switch causes an electric buzzing, a voltage metre moves, and various relay clicks are heard

  2. The experimenter uses the third switch (marked 45 volts) to give the teacher a 'sample' shock to demonstrate the machine is real
• Learning task


  • The teacher would have to give shocks to the learner every time they gave an incorrect answer, and these shocks increased by 15 volts
  • The learner was told to make no comment or protest until the shock level of 300 volts was reached
• Experimenter's prods


  • 'Please continue'
  • 'the experiment requires you to continue'
  • 'It is essential that you continue'
  • 'You have no other choice, you must go on'
  • 'Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so go on'
• Milgram made detailed observations of the teachers' behaviour
• After the research was completed, the teacher was thoroughly debriefed (dehoaxed) and the experimenter reunited the teacher and learner
• Milgram had surveyed 14 Yale students and they estimated that only 0-3% would give 450 volts
• At 300 volts, five (12.5%) of the participants refused to continue, and 26 of the 40 participants (65%) administered the full 450 volts
• Participants were distressed and nervous when given the shocks, biting their lips, sweating, trembling, stuttering, etc.
• 14 displayed nervous laughter, but explained after that they were not sadistic and that their laughter had not meant that they were enjoying shocking the learner
• 3 participants had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures' and the experiment had to be stopped for one participant
• Participant responses to follow-up questionnaire


  • 84% were 'glad/very glad' to have taken part
  • 15% were 'neutral' about having taken part
  • 2% were 'sorry/very sorry' to have taken part
  • 80% said more experiments like this should be carried out
  • 74% felt they had learned something of personal importance
• Milgram concluded that certain dynamics of a situation made it difficult for participants to disobey orders
• Elements that contributed to high levels of obedience


  • The location of the study at a prestigious university provided authority
  • Participants assumed that the experimenter knew what he was doing and had a worthy purpose, so they should be followed
  • The participant didn't wish to disrupt the study because he felt under obligation to the experimenter due to his voluntary consent to take part
  • It was a novel situation for the participant, who therefore didn't know how to behave. If it had been possible to discuss the situation with others the participant might have behaved differently
  • The participant had very little time to resolve the conflict at 300 volts, and he didn't know that the victim would remain silent for the rest of the experiment
  • The participant assumed that the discomfort caused was minimal and temporary and that the scientific gains were important
  • The conflict was between two deeply ingrained tendencies – not to harm someone, and to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities
• Internal validity


  Suggested by Orne & Holland (1968) that the research lacks internal validity as the participants did not believe the electric shocks were real
• It simply wouldn't have made sense that someone in a learning experiment would receive fatal shocks
• Demand characteristics


  Participants behaved as they were expected to behave due to the demand characteristics of the study
• Gina Perry (2012) found that the participants knew they weren't hurting anyone
• In the follow-up questionnaire many participants said they were suspicious because, for example, the experimenter remained so calm
• Milgram (1974) reported that 75% of the participants strongly believed they were given electric shocks, 22.6% had some doubts and only 2.4% were certain that the shocks were not real
• Deception


  Participants were misled as they were told the study was about the effect of punishment on learning
• Lack of informed consent


  Deception and lack of informed consent were an issue in this study
• Milgram argued that if the participants had not been deceived and were fully aware of the purpose of the study then the results would be invalid
• It was difficult to withdraw from the study due to the prods and prompts of the experimenter
• Lack of protection from harm


  Subjects weren't protected from harm as the majority of participants were subjected to distress and, in some cases, participants suffered from seizures
• Baumrind (1964) claimed that Milgram caused psychological damage to his participants that could not be justified and is unethical
• Milgram did not know, before the study, that such high levels of distress would be caused
• Milgram considered ending the study when he observed the participants' behaviour but decided that there was no indication of injurious effects
• 84% of the participants said afterwards that they were glad to have participated
• Milgram argued that the potential damage to participants should be weighed against the importance of the findings