Milgram’s Research

• Milgrams sought an answer to why so many Germans obeyed Hitlers commands
• Sample:

  40 American men volunteered to take part in the study at Yale University supposedly on memory
• Procedure 1:

  • Each volunteer was introduced to another PP (confederate to Milgram)
  • The two PPs drew lots to be be Teacher (T) or Learner (L), however this was fixed so the genuine PP was always (T)
  • The experimenter was also a confederate in a grey lab coat
• Procedure 2:

  • The (L) had to learn a set of word pairs and the (T) would test his knowledge
  • They were in adjacent rooms and the (T) was positioned in front of controls to administer electric shocks to the (L)
  • (T) was encouraged to punish the leaner with a shock after each incorrect answer given
• Procedure 3:

  • When the (T) displayed a reluctance to injure (L) they were encouraged to continue the procedure
  • At 150 volts the (L) began to protest and demanded to be released
  • At 300 Volts, (L) refused to answer any more Qus and said heart issues were starting to bother him
• Procedure 4:

  • At 300 Volts he screamed loudly and from 330 volts heard no more
  • Anytime the teacher seemed reluctant, the experimenter would say ‘the experiment requires you continue’ or ‘you have no choice, you must go on’
  • The (T) was told that the shocks won’t cause lasting tissue damage and also told to keep shocking (L) if they stopped answering
• Volts:

  15 volts - slight shock

  450 volts = XXX
• Findings - Quantitive:

  • Obedience rate was 62.5% (25 out of 40 PPs) - went all the way to 450V
  • 100% of PPs continued to at least 300V (Intense shock)
• Findings - Qualitative:

  • Many PPs showed distress (e.g. twitching, sweating, digging nails into flesh and verbally attacking the experimenter)
  • Three people had uncontrollable seizures
  • However some PPs showed few to none signs of discomfort
• Conclusions:

  • Under the right conditions (e.g. the presence of a legitimate authority, the agentic state) people will commit acts of destructive obedience towards someone they have just met
• Situational Variables:

  • Proximity
  • Location
  • Uniform
• Proximity version:

  • Both were moved to the same room
  • obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
• Touch proximity version:

  • The (T) had to force (L) hand onto electroshock plate
  • obedience rate dropped to 30 %
• Remote proximity version:

  • Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone
  • obedience rate drops to 20.5%
• Location Variation:

  • Conducted in a run-down office block
  • Obedience rate dropped to 47.5%

  ———> PPs more obedient in Uni environment as they perceived the experimenter had legitimate authority
• Uniform variation:

  • Experimenter was replaced by an ‘ordinary‘ member of the public, meaning no uniform
  • Obedience rates dropped to 20%

  ————> Uniforms are a symbol of authority so encourage obedience as those around seen legitimate authority figures
• Strength - Real Life Application:

  • Opened our eyes to the problem of obedience and so may reduce future obedience in response to destructive authority.
  • Highlights the way we can all easily be victims to pressure.
  • A general awareness of the power of such influence us useful in establishing social order
• Strength - Highly replicable:

  • Procedure has been repeated all over the world
  • Researchers found that 85% of PPs were willing to give lethal electric shock to an unconscious man (confederate) whilst being cheered on by a presenter and a to audience

  ———> replication increases the reliablity
• Strength - external validity:

  • established by SS
  • Hofling et al (1966) in a real life setting
• Hofling et al (1966):

  • Observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural experiment (covert observation). The researchers found that 95% of nurses in a hospital obeyed a doctor (confederate) over the phone to increase the dosage of a patients medicine to double what is advised on the bottle
  • This suggests that - ‘everyday’ individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive authority figures
• Weakness - Ethical Issues:

  • There was deception so informed consent couldn’t be given
  • Psychological harm was inflicted on PPs, showed signs of distress such as trembling, sweating and nerves
• Weakness - Raises socially sensitive issues - excuses people who were responsible for killing innocent people

  • judicial system oppose this in that all individuals are responsible for their own actions
• Weakness - Lack of interval validity:

  PPs trust that nothing would happen at a prestigious university so they don’t act how they would in a real life situation
• Weakness - Lack of ecological Validity :

  The tasks given to PPs are not like those we could encounter in real life

  ————> lacks mundane realism
• Situational variables - PEEL 1:

  Strength - Research support - Bickman (1974) - demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience
• Bickman (1974):

  • conducted an experiment in New York where he had 3 confederates dress in different outfits, one wore a jacket and tie, one in a milkman uniform and the 3rd a security guards uniform  
  • The confederates stood on the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or lending money to someone for a parking meter
  • They found people were twice as likely to obey the security guard compared to the other two confederates
  • This supports the idea  of uniform increasing obedience and that a situational variable can have a powerful effect on obedience levels
• Situational variables - PEEL 2:

  Strength - Cultural validity - Milgram's findings have been replicated in other countries

  • Meeus & Raaijmakers studied obedience in Dutch PPs and 90% obeyed in a desperate interview environment
• Situational variables - PEEL 3:

  Weakness - low internal validity:

  PPs knew it was a fake situation so may have displayed demand characteristics and did what they should to please the experimenter

  • especially as they were being paid to take part