Milgram (1963)

• Methodology of Milgram (1963) ?


  Controlled observation in laboratory. Placed ad in a New Haven newspaper- selected 40 males aged 20-50 years. Participants believed they'd be taking part in research about memory & learning. Men in sample had range of jobs ( postal clerks to engineers) & varied in educational level (1 hadn't finished primary school & 1 had doctorate). Each were paid $4.50 for participation. Was told they'd receive this for coming to lab-payment didn't depend on remaining in study.
• What happened at start of Milgram's study (procedures) ?

  Took place in lab at Yale university. Participant greeted by 'experimenter' (31 year old man dressed in grey technician's coat). Another 'participant' at lab (mild-mannered & likeable 47 year old accountant Mr Wallace). Both were confederates of Milgram. Participants drew slips of paper to decide who is teacher & learner. Real participant always teacher role. Both taken to experimental room & learner strapped into 'electric chair' apparatus to prevent excessive movement. Electrode placed on learner's wrist linked to shock generator.
• Describe the shock machine (Milgram procedures) :

  Teacher seated in front of shock generator. 30 switches, each showing rise in voltage starting at 15 volts & going up to 450 volts. For every 4 switches, there were 'shock' labels starting at 'slight shock' (15V) to 'intense shock' (255V) & finally 'XXX' at 450 volts (potentially fatal). Experimenter gave teacher 'sample' shock to demonstrate machine was real.
• What was the learning task (Milgram procedures) ?

  Teacher told to administer shock when learner gave wrong answer & to escalate to higher level of shock each time, announcing shock level. Learner told to make no comment or protest until shock level 300 volts reached- should pound on wall but make no further comment after.
• What was the feedback from the experimenter (Milgram procedures) ?

  Trained to give sequence of 4 standard 'prods' if teacher hesitated about delivering shock or asked for guidance: 'please continue' , 'the experiment requires that you continue'. Special prods: 'although shocks may be painful there's no permanent tissue damage so go on'.
• Dehoax (Milgram procedures) :


  After research completed, teacher was thoroughly 'dehoaxed' (debriefed) & experimenter reunited teacher & learner. Interviewed about their experience in study.
• Quantitative findings of Milgram:

  At 300 volts, 5 (12.5%) of participants refused to continue (point at which learner made only protest). All participants had continued to this point. 65% administered full 450volts. (35% defied experimenter's authority). Prior to study Milgram surveyed 14 Yale psychology students- they estimated 0-3% of participants would administer 450Volts.
• Qualitative findings of Milgram:

  Many subjects showed nervousness & large number showed extreme tension: 'subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan & dig their finger-nails into their flesh'. 14 participants displayed 'nervous laughter & smiling'. In post experimental interview they explained they were not sadistic & their laughter didn't mean they were enjoying shocking learner. 3 participants had full-blown uncontrollable seizures-1 had violent convulsion so research session stopped.
• Ethical issues:


  Baumrind (1964)- claimed Milgram caused psychological damage to participants- can't be justified. Milgram defended himself- he didn't know such high levels distress would be caused. He did consider ending study when he observed participants' behaviour but decided there was no indication of injurious effects (Milgram 1974). Also 84% of participants said they were glad to have participated. Potential damage to participants should be weighed against importance of findings.
• Perry (2012):


  Argued Milgram failed in his duty of care for participants as some were waiting for up to a year before they were debriefed despite fact they had left lab believing they killed someone.
• Evaluate internal validity:

  Orne & Holland (1968)- claim research lacks internal validity as participants didn't believe electric shocks were real. Simply wouldn't have made sense that someone in learning experiment would receive fatal shocks- participants behaved as they were expected to behave due to demand characteristics of study. Further supported by Perry (2012)- read through Milgram's archive of what happened & found participants knew they weren't hurting anyone. In follow-up questionnaire many participants said they were suspicious e.g, as experimenter was calm.
• Milgram (1974):


  Reported 75% of participants strongly believed they were giving electric shocks.
• Conclusions:


  It's circumstances in which participants found themselves that amalgamated to create situation in which it proved difficult to disobey. 13 elements in this situation that contributed to these levels of obedience.
• 1st element:

  Location of study in prestigious university provided authority.
• 2nd element:

  Participants assumed experimenter knew what he was doing & had a worthy purpose so should be followed.
• 3rd element:


  Participant didn't wish to disrupt study as he felt under obligation to experimenter due to his voluntary consent to take part.
• 4th element:


  It was a novel situation for participant, who therefore didn't know how to behave. If it had been possible to discuss situation with others participant might have behaved differently.
• 5th element:


  Participant had very little time to resolve conflict at 300 volts & didn't know victim would remain silent for rest of experiment.
• 6th element:

  Participant assumed discomfort caused was minimal & temporary, & that scientific gains were important.
• 7th element:


  Conflict was between 2 deeply ingrained tendencies- not to harm someone & to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities.