Milgram's research

• AIM: 

  To see if people will obey orders, even those requiring them to harm others. 
• METHOD: (PART 1)

  40 American males were recruited. They believed they were taking part in a learning and memory study at yale university. The experimenter assigned the participant to the role of a ‘teacher’ through a rigged draw, whilst a confederate was assigned a ‘learner.’ The learner had to answer questions given by the teacher, if they gave an incorrect answer the teacher was told to administer an electric shock which increased each time the wrong answer was given (15-450 volts).
• METHOD: (PART 2)

  The teacher and learner were in different rooms so could hear but not see each other. When participants wanted to end the experiment, they were given 4 ‘prods’ were used to encourage the participant to continue- if they still protested after this, they could withdraw from the study. 
• FINDINGS: 

  65% of participants went to the maximum (450 VOLTS). 5 participants stopped at 300 volts. Many showed signs of tension and anxiety, for example sweating, shaking, and nervous laughter, but the majority continued to the end. 
• CONCLUSION: 

  People will obey orders from an authority figure potentially fatally harming a stranger in doing so. 
• EVALUATION: (PART 1)

  1. Participants were deceived and there was a lack of informed consent- they did not know the shocks were not real and didn’t know what they were letting themselves in for as they were told it was only a learning experiment. Milgram debriefed his participants afterwards, this was done to attempt to counter what he’d done by lying to the participant. However, if he hadn’t lied to the participant then demand characteristics may have affected the results not making them valid. So even though it broke ethical guidelines, it was the only way to achieve true results. 
• EVALUATION: (PART 2)

  1. Participants experienced severe stress and psychological harm, thinking they had potentially killed or seriously injured somebody. This could result in the participant facing some form of trauma from the experience. 
  2. There was sample bias as the sample only contained American males, so females and other cultures may behave differently. Therefore, this study lacks population validity and furthermore decreases external validity. 
• SITUATIONAL VARIABLES: 

  (proximity) When the teacher and learner were in the same room obedience dropped to 40% because the teacher could see the consequences of their actions. 

  (proximity) In another variation, the experimenter was not in the same room, instead giving orders by phone. In this variation, obedience dropped to 20.5%  
• SITUATIONAL VARIABLES:

  (location) when the experiment moved from Yale university to a run-down office block, obedience dropped to 47.5% due to the lack of prestige. That made it feel less important to obey. 

  (uniform) The experimenter was called away to answer an important ‘phone call’ and was replaced by a ‘member of the public’ (another confederate) wearing ordinary clothes rather than a lab coat. Obedience dropped to 20% because participants did not see the authority as legitimate.