Milgram

• Methodology


  conducted in a lab,conditions are well controlled

  Not an experiment(no IV or DV),a controlled observation
• Methodology


  Participants

  Advert in new haven newspaper,it led people to believe that they would be taking part in research about memory and learning.

  Volunteer sampling

  He selected 40 males aged between 20-50.

  The sample had a range of jobs:postal clerks to engineers.

  Varied educational level,some hadnt finished elementary school other had a doctorate or other degrees

  Each man got $4.50 for the study,whether they remained in the study or not
• Procedures


  Yale university

  When pps arrived they were greeted by the experimenter,a 31 year old man dressed in a grey technicians coat.

  Mr Wallace-another 'participant',47 year old accountant.

  They were both confederates

  Pps drew out a piece of paper,to decide who would play the teacher or learner role.It was rigged so that Mr Wallace always was the learner.

  Learner and teacher were taken to the experimental room.

  Learner was strapped into an electric chair and an electrode was placed on his wrist linked to a shock generator in the next room.
• Procedures


  The shock machine

  Teacher was taken to the adjoining room and seated in front of the shock machine.

  It had 30 switches,starting from 15 volts to 450.Every 4 switches there was labels.'slight shock' 15 volts,'intense shock' 225 volts and finally 'XXX' at 450 volts.

  Experimenter gave the teacher a sample shock(45 volts) to show that the machine was real.
• Procedures


  instructions Milgram gave to Mr Wallace.

  to give 3 wrong answers to every correct one

  had set responses

  75 volts Grunt

  120 volts Shouts in pain

  150 volts refuse to continue

  200 volts blood curdling screams

  300 volts refuse to answer,mumble about heart condition

  +330 volts silence
• Procedures

  The learning task

  Teacher was told to administer a shock when the learner gave a wrong answer,a higher level of shock each time,announcing the shock level each time.

  Learner was told to make no comment or protest until the shock level reached 300 volts.

  At this point he should pound on the wall but make no further comment.
• Procedure


  Feedback from experimenter

  4 standard prods if the teacher hesitated to deliver the shock or asked for guidance;please continue,the experiment requires that you continue,its absolutely essential that you should continue,you have no other choice you must go on.

  Special prods if the teacher asked about the well-being of the learner,'although the shocks may be painful,there is no permanent tissue damage,so go on'.
• Procedure


  Dehoax

  teacher was thoroughly dehoaxed(debriefed) and the experimenter reunited the teacher and the learner.They were then interviewed about their experience in the study
• Findings


  Quantitative data

  Prior to the study Milgram surveyed 14 Yale psychology students.

  They estimated that 0-3% of the participants would administer 450 volts.

  They actual results were different.

  At 300 volts,5 pps refused to continue.

  26 of the pps administered the full 450 volts,65%
• Findings


  Qualitative data

  many subjects shown nervousness,and extreme tension.

  They were observed to sweat,tremble,stutter,bite their lips,groan and dig their finger-nails into their flesh.

  14 pps displayed nervous laughter and smiling,shows they were acting acting against their own values.

  Those pps explained in the dehoax that they were not sadistic and their laughter didnt mean they enjoyed shocking the learner.

  3 pps had full-blown uncontrollable seizures,one was so violent the research had to be stopped.
• Conclusions


  the circumstance that the pp were in combined to create a situation that provided it difficult to not disobey

  Milgram suggested 13 elements of the situation that had contributed to these levels of obedience
• Conclusions


  The location of the research,at a prestigious university provided authority
• Conclusions


  Pps assumed the experimenter knew what he was doing and had a worthy purpose,so should be followed
• Conclusions


  pp didnt wish to disrupt the study,they felt under obligation to the experimenter due to their voluntary consent to take part
• Conclusions


  a novel situation for the pp,so they didnt know how to behave.

  If they were able to discuss the situation with others the pp may have behaved differently
• Conclusions


  pp had little time to resolve the conflict at 300 volts and they didnt know the victim would remain silent for the rest of the experiment
• Conclusions


  pp assumed the discomfort caused was minimal and temporary and that the scientific gains were important
• Conclusions


  the conflict was between 2 deeply ingrained tendencies.

  Not to harm someone

  Obey those we perceive to be authority figures
• Evaluation


  Orne and Holland claim that this research lacks internal validity.

  The pp didnt actually believe he electric shocks were real,it wouldnt have made sense that someone in a learning experiment would recieve fatal shocks.

  pp acted they way they did due to demand characteristics.
• Evaluation


  Population validity

  the sample had a wide range of of occupations and ages but gender and culturally biased making generalisations difficult.
• Evaluation


  Ecological validity

  the lab setting,the nature of the authority figure and the task were unrealistic and unlikely to occur in real life.
• Evaluation 


  Construct validity

  even if we argue following orders to harm someone is realistic,a narrow measure of what obedience is.
• Evaluation


  Temporal validity

  levels of obedience are subject to change as society changes,Milgrams findings are out of date
• Evaluation


  Social desirability

  it seems unlikely that pp shocked another person to appear to be following accepted norms unless we argued that they wanted to do the right thing in front the experimenter and this was who they were concerned about.

  this would be more akin to conformity than obedience then
• Evaluation


  Researcher bias

  Milgrams quantitative data were completely objective but qualitative data less so
• Evaluation


  Valid consent

  pp had consented to the experiment but they believed that it was about memory and learning
• Evaluation


  Deception

  there was many ways that Milgram deceived pp but arguably to reduce demand characteristics
• Evaluation


  Risk of harm

  the responses recorded by Milgram show that pps clearly suffered as a consequence of the study and there is a debate about whether they genuinely had the right to withdraw
• Evaluation


  Confidentiality

  although no names were published,photographs and film footage of the study were published
• Evaluation


  Privacy

  many pp showed they had the potential to kill another and this is something they may not have wanted revealed about themselves - even to themselves
• Evaluation


  Long term risks of the belief,values etc

  most pp had recorded they were glad to take part in the experiment and had experienced growth as a result but does this justify the potential long term negative effects