Lecture 4 - Milgram Flashcards
Who was Stanley Milgram and what was his background?
Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) was a social psychologist born in the Bronx, New York. He earned a Ph.D. from Harvard, where he worked with Gordon W. Allport and Solomon Asch. Milgram is best known for his studies on obedience, which explored how ordinary people could commit harmful acts under the influence of authority.
What major event influenced Milgram’s interest in obedience research?
Milgram’s research was largely influenced by his desire to understand how ordinary people could participate in atrocities like the Holocaust. He was particularly interested in the role of authority figures in shaping behavior.
What is the “banality of evil” concept, and how did Milgram’s work relate to it?
The “banality of evil” concept, coined by Hannah Arendt, suggests that evil actions are not always committed by monsters but by ordinary people just following orders. Milgram’s research supported this idea, showing that people would obey harmful commands without malice, simply because they were directed to do so by an authority figure.
What was Milgram’s famous obedience study about?
Milgram’s famous obedience experiment tested whether people would follow orders to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to another person (the “learner”) when instructed by an authority figure (the “experimenter”). The study revealed that a high percentage of participants were willing to administer potentially lethal shocks when prompted by an authority figure.
What were the main results of Milgram’s basic obedience study (Study No. 5)?
In the basic study, 100% of participants continued to administer shocks at least up to 300 volts, and 65% went all the way to the maximum 450 volts (“XXX”), despite hearing the learner’s distress.
What were some of the ethical concerns regarding Milgram’s study?
Ethical issues included:
- Deception: Participants were unaware that the shocks were fake and that the learner was a confederate.
- Lack of informed consent: Participants did not know they were part of a study on obedience, nor were they told that the shocks were not real.
- Distress: Many participants experienced emotional distress, such as nervous laughter, seizures, and feelings of guilt. Some even suffered long-term effects, questioning their own behavior.
- Debriefing issues: Participants were not properly debriefed immediately after the study, leading to confusion and distress.
How did Milgram ensure participants continued despite their distress?
The experimenter used a series of verbal prompts (prods) to encourage participants to continue:
1. “Please continue.”
2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”
3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
4. “You have no other choice, you must go on.”
Despite these prompts, some participants stopped, with 24% refusing to continue after significant distress.
What was the controversy surrounding Milgram’s ethics, particularly in regard to debriefing?
Milgram delayed debriefing until the end of the study to avoid participants learning about the true nature of the experiment. Some participants reported lasting distress and nightmares. The debriefing was minimal, and the full explanation was provided a year later.
How did Milgram’s study affect future research on obedience?
Milgram’s study led to further research on obedience and authority. It influenced studies in diverse fields such as ethics, law, theology, and history, and sparked debates about the potential dangers of blind obedience.
What is the concept of “agentic state” in Milgram’s theory?
The agentic state is a psychological condition in which individuals relinquish their personal responsibility and accept the authority of others, thus acting as agents for that authority. This concept was central to understanding why people obey orders, even to the point of harming others.
What did Milgram’s research reveal about obedience?
Milgram’s research revealed that people are highly susceptible to obeying authority figures, even when it involves causing harm to others. It showed that obedience can be driven by external pressure, authority, and the dehumanization of victims.
What variations did Milgram test, and how did they impact obedience levels?
Milgram tested many variations, including changes in:
- Proximity to the victim: Obedience decreased when the victim was closer to the participant.
- Proximity of the authority figure: Obedience decreased when the authority figure was less visible or present.
- Legitimacy of authority: Obedience decreased when the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person.
These variations influenced whether participants continued to obey.
What criticisms were raised about Milgram’s study in terms of its ecological validity?
Critics questioned whether the findings of the study were applicable to real-world situations, since the laboratory setup was artificial and not something participants would typically encounter in everyday life. This raised concerns about how well the results represented actual behavior in real-life obedience situations.
What is Social Impact Theory, and how does it relate to Milgram’s findings?
Social Impact Theory (Latane, 1981) suggests that obedience to authority depends on three factors:
- Strength: The authority’s perceived status or prestige.
- Immediacy: The proximity of the authority figure.
- Number: The number of people involved in the situation. This theory helps explain Milgram’s findings, where proximity and authority played a significant role in determining obedience.
What is Social-Categorization Theory and its relation to Milgram’s results?
Social-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1991) suggests that we are more likely to obey authority figures if we identify with the group they represent (e.g., the scientific community). Milgram’s study demonstrated that participants might obey authority figures because they identified with their role as a scientist, while they were less likely to identify with the victim.
What were some alternative explanations for participants’ behavior in Milgram’s study?
Some critics suggested that participants may not have been following blind obedience but responding to demand characteristics (Orne, 1962), meaning they may have suspected the experiment was not real. Research assistants noted that some participants expressed doubts, and Milgram himself acknowledged that people might rationalize their actions afterward.
How did Burger (2009) replicate Milgram’s study, and what did he conclude?
Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s study with ethical modifications. He found that a significant proportion of participants still obeyed orders to administer shocks, suggesting that the tendency to follow authority remains strong. However, the study questioned whether participants were truly following “blind obedience” or whether they felt morally conflicted but continued out of social pressure.
What long-term impact did Milgram’s research have on psychology?
Milgram’s research remains one of the most influential studies in psychology. It has led to significant debates about ethics in psychological research, the nature of obedience, and the potential for ordinary people to commit harmful acts under authority figures. It also has influenced fields such as law, management, history, and ethics.
