4.1.1 Milgram's study

Question 1

Purpose of Milgram’s study

Answer 1

We use this experiment as a BASELINE test to assess obedience levels.

Milgram wanted to answer the questions of why such a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder over 6 million people in the holocaust.

Question 2

Milgram’s baseline procedure

Answer 2

Stanley Milgram (1963) designed a procedure that could be used to assess obedience levels
40 American men (aged 20-50) volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory
Recruited through newspaper advert and paid £4.50
When each participant arrived at Milgram’s lab, they were introduced to another participant who was actually a confederate of the experiment
They drew lots to see who the teacher (T) and the learner (L) would be. However, this was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher. An experimenter (E) was also involved which was a confederate dressed in a lab coat
Teacher given a small shock to start with
Pairs of words were read out and if the learner got them incorrect then a “fake” shock was administered by the teacher
A tape recording of the learner’s reaction was used for all participants
Degree of shock increased as test progressed
The study aimed to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure ordered the participant to give an increasingly strong shock to a learner located in a different room. The shocks were fake but the participant did not know this

Question 3

Milgram’s baseline findings

Answer 3

Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts
12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts (intense shock)
65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts, so were fully obedient
Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as:: Participants showed signs of extreme tension, many were seen to sweat, many were seen to tremble, many were seen to stutter, many were seen to bite their lips, many dig their fingernails into their hands + three had “full-blown uncontrollable seizures”
Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants behaviour:
They estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts
Shows that the findings were unexpected
They underestimated how obedient the participants would be
All participants were debriefed + assured that their behaviour was totally normal
They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire – 84% said they were glad to have participated

Question 4

Milgram’s prods

Answer 4

Four standard “prods” that were used by the experimenter:
Please continue or please go on
The experiment requires you to continue
It is absolutely essential that you continue
You have no other choice; you must go on

Question 5

Milgram’s conclusions

Answer 5

Milgram concluded that German people are not “different”
The American participants in the study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person
He suspected that there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so he decided to conduct further studies to investigate these

Question 6

Milgram’s ethics

Answer 6

Ethical guidelines didn’t exist before Milgram’s study but because of his research (and Zimbardo’s study) ethical guidelines became a priority.
A participant’s right to withdraw from the research
The need to get fully informed consent from the participants
The use of deception
The importance of protecting participants from the risk of psychological and physical harm

Question 7

Research evaluation - low internal validity

Answer 7

Milgram reported that 75% of the participants believed that the shocks were real
However, Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn’t believe in the set up- they were “play acting”
Gina Perry (2013) listened to Milgram’s tapes of the experiment and reported about only half of them believed the shocks were real. 2/3 of these participants were disobedient

Question 8

Evaluation - counterpoint to validity

Answer 8

Charles Sheridan and Richard King (1972) conducted a similar study to Milgram’s
Student participants gave real shocks to puppies following orders from the experimenter
Despite the distress of the animals, 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock

Question 9

Evaluation - alternative interpretation of findings

Answer 9

Alex Haslem et al (2014) showed that Milgram’s participants obeyed when the first 3 verbal prods were given
However, when the fourth prod was given, every participant disobeyed without exception
According to SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SIT), participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the study
When they were ordered to obey an authority figure they refused
This shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of the findings
Milgram himself did suggest “identifying with the science is the real reason for obedience”

Question 10

Situational variables

Answer 10

Proximity
Location
Uniform

Question 11

Situational variables - proximity

Answer 11

In Milgram’s original study, the teacher and the student were kept apart- they could hear each other only
In the proximity variation, the teacher and the learner were in the same room
Because of this, obedience dropped from the original 65% to 40%
In the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the ‘electric shock’ switch if they refused once an incorrect answer had been given
Obedience further dropped to 30%
In the remote proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instruction on the telephone
Obedience further dropped to 20.5%. The participants also tried to pretend that they had given the shock
Explanation: decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Question 12

Situational variables - location

Answer 12

Milgram also ran the experiment in a run-down office block rather than the university.
In this study, obedience fell to 47.5%

Question 13

Situational variables - uniform

Answer 13

In the baseline experiment, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a sign of authority
In one variation change, the experimenter left the room and someone in ‘normal clothes’ came to continue the experiment
Obedience rates dropped to 20%, the lowest of all the variables
Explanation: uniforms encourage obedience, as they are recognised as symbols of authority

Question 14

Evaluation

Answer 14

Over studies have looked at situational variables in obedience studies.
Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York.
He had 3 confederates dressed in different outfits – a security guard, a milkman’s outfit and a suit jacket and tie.
The confederates then asked random members of the public to do tasks such as pick up litter or hand over coins for the parking meters.
The public were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one in the suit jacket and tie.
Supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, effects obedience.

Question 15

Study of obedience from another culture

Answer 15

Meeus + Raaijmakers (1986)

Question 16

Study of obedience from another culture - aim

Answer 16

Similar aim to Milgram
See how far someone would be prepared to obey orders from an authority figure even if they caused harm
Focused more on psychological harm than physical harm

Question 17

Study of obedience from another culture - Procedure

Answer 17

Participants were asked to help interview a job applicant (confederate) by asking them general knowledge questions
Before the experiment, the participants was told these questions would allow them to determine if the applicant was good enough for the job
Researchers then told the applicant that they would not, so the participant thought they were lying
If the applicant answered a question wrong, participant had to deliver 1 of 7 stress remarks, to make them become stressed as the participant was told the job is stressful
Confederate (applicant) was following a script and then became upset and wanted to stop the interview but the participant was forced to continue

Question 18

Study of obedience from another culture - results

Answer 18

92% continued with the study despite confederate becoming visibly stressed and upset by the insults thrown at them

Question 19

Study of obedience from another culture - conclusion

Answer 19

Despite Dutch culture being more liberal than Milgram’s US culture, participants still followed orders from an authority figure despite the fact they caused psychological harm to others

Question 20

Study of obedience from another culture - evaluation

Answer 20

Generalisable: 39 participants were used with a mixture of ages and genders
Reliable and replicable: lab experiment with tight controls
Agency theory: supports this
Validity: lacks ecological validity as the task was unfamiliar to the participants and was conducted in an artificial environment
Ethics: participants did not give informed consent and were deceived. They did not have a right to withdraw + may have been psychologically harmed, but to a lesser extent than Milgram’s participants
However, they were debriefed after the experiment

Question 21

Counterpoint

Answer 21

Counterpoint:
Replications are not very ‘cross-cultural’
Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 which took place in India and Jordan (very different from the USA)
Other replica studies took place in Scotland, Australia and Spain are very similar to the USA
Therefore, it might not be appropriate to say that Milgram’s findings apply to all or most cultures

Low internal validity:
One limitation is that the participants knew that the procedure was fake
Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) criticised Milgram’s baseline study by saying that his study was lacking ‘experimental realism’
In all of Milgram’s studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just ‘play-acted’

Question 22

Agentic state

Answer 22

Research support:
Milgram’s study supports Agentic state.
Most of the participants resisted giving shocks at some point.
They asked the experimenter questions such as “who is responsible if the learner is harmed” and when the reply “I am” was given by the experimenter, the participant continued.
The participant was no longer responsible for their actions.

Question 23

Social support

Answer 23

Resisting obedience: In one of Milgram’s variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. (They had a confederate in the teacher room with them who refused to give the shocks, which influenced the participants to become disobedient.)