Milgram

    Cards (29)

    • Obedience
      The psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional feature that binds people to systems of authority. It is an active or deliberate form of social influence.
    • Obedience (according to Milgram 1992)
      The abdication of individual judgement in the face of some external social pressure
    • Elements of obedience
      • Being ordered or instructed to do something
      • Being influenced by an authority figure of superior status
      • The maintenance of social power and status of the authority figure in a hierarchical society
    • A person commanded by a legitimate authority usually obeys - it is a ubiquitous and indispensable feature of social life
    • Obedience serves a number of productive functions with the very survival of society depending on its existence
    • From 1933-45, millions of innocent people were systematically slaughtered on command
    • Such inhumane actions may have originated in the mind of one person, but they could only have been carried out on such a massive scale because large numbers of people obeyed
    • History and observation suggest that for many people obedience is such an ingrained behavioural tendency that it will override training in ethics, empathy and moral values
    • Agentic state
      Subordinates adopt this state where they become the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes when given extreme commands by legitimate authority figures
    • The adoption of the agentic state can account for horrific acts committed in the name of obedience eg the atrocities of WWII, the Balkans conflicts, the atrocities in Rwanda
    • The aim of this study was to investigate the process of obedience by testing how far an individual will go in obeying an authority figure, even when the command breaches the moral code that an individual should not hurt another person against his will
    • Research Method
      • Although Milgram refers to this study as an experiment, it is generally considered a controlled observation as there was, in fact, no independent variable
    • Study procedure
      1. Took place in a laboratory at Yale University
      2. Conditions could be controlled (e.g. who was teacher/learner, the learner's recorded and thus standardised responses, the experimenter's 'prods')
    • Data collection
      • Gathered through observations made by both the experimenter who was in the same room as the participant and others who observed the process through one-way mirrors
      • Most sessions were recorded on magnetic tape
      • Occasional photographs were taken through the one-way mirrors
      • Notes were made on unusual behaviours
    • Prior to the study
      • 14 Yale Seniors, all psychology majors, estimated the percentage of participants who would administer the highest level of shock
      • Estimates ranged from 1% - 3% (mean 1.2%)
    • Sample
      • 40 male participants aged between 20 and 50 years, from the New Haven area were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. There was a wide range of occupations in the sample. Participants were paid $4.50 for simply presenting themselves at the laboratory.
    • Procedure/study
      1. The study took place in a laboratory at Yale University
      2. Prior to the study, the 14 Yale Seniors were provided with a detailed description of the experimental situation and asked to predict the behaviour of 100 hypothetical subjects
      3. The 40 participants in the experimental group were always given the role of teacher and saw the learner (a confederate) strapped into a chair with (non-active) electrodes attached to his arms
      4. The 'teacher' then sat in front of an electric shock generator in an adjacent room and had to conduct a paired word test on the learner, giving him an electric shock of increasing intensity for every wrong answer
      5. The 'learner' (Mr Wallace, a 47 year old, mild-mannered and accountant) produced a set of predetermined responses, giving approximately three wrong answers to every correct one
      6. If the 'teacher' turned to the experimenter for advice, the experimenter responded with a series of standardised prods
      7. The study finished when either the 'teacher' refused to continue or reached 450 volts
      8. The participant was then fully debriefed
      9. Data was gathered through observations, recordings, photographs and notes
    • Participants
      • 14 Yale Seniors predicted the behaviour of 100 hypothetical subjects
      • 40 participants in the experimental group were given the role of 'teacher'
    • Learner
      • Mr Wallace, a 47 year old, mild-mannered and likable accountant
    • Electric shock generator
      • Had 30 switches ranging from 15-450 volts, in 15 volt increments
    • At 300 volts the 'learner' pounded on the wall and thereafter made no further replies
    • The study finished when either the 'teacher' refused to continue (was disobedient/defiant) or reached 450 volts (was obedient)
    • Findings
      • There was considerable agreement between the 14 Yale Seniors on the expected behaviour of hypothetic subjects
      • All respondents predicted that only an insignificant minority would go through to the end of the shock series (estimates ranged from 0 to 3%, class mean was 1.2%)
      • All participants (40/40) / 100% continued to 300 volts
      • 26/40 / 65% of participants continued to the full 450 volts
    • Distribution of break-off points (/40 participants)
      • 26 450
      • 1 375
      • 1 360
      • 1 345
      • 2 330
      • 4 315
      • 5 300
    • Participant behaviour
      • 26 participants were obedient
      • 14 disobedient/defiant
    • Many participants showed signs of extreme stress whilst administering the shocks eg sweating, trembling, stuttering, laughing nervously. 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
    • On completion of the test many obedient participants heaved sighs of relief, mopped their brows, or nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some shook their head, apparently in regret; some remained calm throughout.
    • Milgram's possible explanations for high obedience
      • The fact that the study was carried out in the prestigious university of Yale influenced participants as to the worthiness of the study and the competence of the researcher
      • The participants were told the shocks were not harmful
      • The situation was completely new for the participant so he had no past experience to guide his behaviour
    • Possible conclusions
      • Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people.
      • People, will obey others whom they consider legitimate authority figures even if what they are asked to do goes against their moral beliefs.
      • People obey because certain situational features lead them to suspend their sense of autonomy and become an agent of an authority figure.
      • Individual differences, such as personality, influence the extent to which people will be obedient.
    See similar decks