Milgram Flashcards
Who was Milgram and what did he do?
· Milgram was a Jew who’s family had fled Nazi persecution – he was therefore interested in the holocaust
· He was intrigued by Solomon Asch’s studies of conformity (Asch, 1951)
· He wanted to explore scientifically the underlying psychological mechanisms behind destructive obedience
· He considered taking his experiment to Germany
He wanted to use a procedure more meaningful than Asch’s line-length judgements
Who participated in his study?
· Participants responded to advertisements and mail shots asking for volunteers to take part in scientific research on learning and punishment at Yale University in the U.S.
· Original study n=40 but later tested nearly 1,000 participants, including female ones, all aged 20- 50
· Sample was diverse – broad range of occupations and ages, mostly male
Participants turn up at lab and meet another participant
What happened in Milgram’s experiment?
· Fake draw of sticks to decide who plays role of learner and who teacher (image)
· ‘Shock generator’ machine and sample shock (45v) – based on ‘aggression machine’ invented by Buss (1961)
· Read out word pairs and then test learner’s memory for them and punish each error with a shock (diagram)
· Increase intensity of shock upon each error (15v each time, rising from 15 to 450)
If participant became reluctant to continue, then the experimenter used a script
What was the script for reluctant participants?
· “Please continue” OR “Please go on”
· “The experiment requires that you continue”
· “It is absolutely essential that you continue”
· “You have no other choice, you must go on”
Often went off script, did not stick strictly to it
What were the dependent measures?
· Maximum voltage participant willing to shock to (interval level measure)
· Verbal scripts
· Observation of video footage
Debrief interview material
What were the basic findings of his study
· Students, behavioural scientists and laypersons asked to predict – they all said nobody would continue once the learner protested
· Pilot study (no oral feedback from learner – no noise or pain) – everyone went to 450v!!
· Mean disobey voltage = 360 volts (by 180v feedback included “I can’t stand the pain”, by 270 volts a loud scream)
· 65% never disobeyed at all and went to 450v
· No participants stopped before 300v
Findings sent shock-waves around the world and made Milgram infamous
What variations were there across studies?
· Participant left alone to set shock level – mean level chosen = 50v
· 2 experimenters present and they argued – no one continued (erodes the power)
· Location changed from university to run-down office block – 48% fully obedient
· Experimenter (scientist) replaced by layperson – 20% fully obedient (no white coat)
· ‘Touch proximity’ – 30% fully obedient (image)
· Proximity of learner (the target) decreased (link in chain) – 93% (making someone else do the shock for you)
Proximity of authority reduced (orders by phone) - 20.5%
Is there any cross culture variations?
- Most obedient = Holland
- Least = Australia
- Replications of Milgram’s work in different countries
- Not perfect replications, due to ethics
- Differed who the target and learner were
Explanations for obedience?
Participants realised it wasn’t ‘real’?
– No, almost all Ps said they thought they were delivering real shocks that were painful
-Relic of its time?
– Burger (2009) – replication in US (up to 150v) – similar obedience levels in men and women
-Were participants monsters?
-Danger of Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross, 1977) – example of 9/11 and 7/7 bombers
-Elms and Milgram found no significant personality differences
-The power of the situation
– Eichmann (Arendt, 1963)
– My Lai massacre
– Iraq
What was the Burger (2007) replication?
· Tested 18 men, and found that 65 percent of them agreed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks
· 22 women signed up for the experiment. 73 percent yielded to the orders of the experimenter.
· Ps had an unusually high level of education. 22.9 percent had some college, 40 percent had bachelor’s degrees and 20 percent had master’s degrees.
· The group was also ethnically diverse with 54.3 percent (white), 18.6 percent (Asian), 12.9 percent (Latin/Hispanic), 8.6 percent (Indian-Asian) and 4.3 percent (African -American).
See also Dolinski et al (2017) – Burger-method replication in Poland (data collection in 2015) – 90% compliance up to button 10
What is the agentic shift?
-Individual becomes an instrument of authority, no longer fully autonomous
– “This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process.” (Milgram, 1974)
– “…when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.” (1974)
Why might people be obedient?
· Almost an altered state of consciousness
· Acts conducted in this state have no long-term
consequences for self-concept
· Fragmentation of the evil act – link in a chain (Eichmann)
· Human groups evolved requiring a basic propensity towards structural organisation
· Societies tend to require unthinking obedience to authority
· Obedience is often rewarded – e.g. in school or in the world of work
Socially organized evil
Explanations for agentic shift?
· Displacement of responsibility is powerful way of maintaining self-esteem and self-concept in the face of threat (Berkowitz, 1993)
· Norms – Ps had entered into a ‘contract’ – were paid for participating
· Buffer (technology) see Wye, 1971; Fisher (1981)
· Incremental steps – ‘foot in the door’ technique
· Authority respected – Yale
· Cause respected – ‘Science’ (ideological justification) & meaningful roles (learner/teacher)
· Surveillance
· Little time for reflection and novel situation
· Focusing on ‘doing the job’ and the task itself (quotation)
· ‘De-valuing’ learner
– “He was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to get shocked”
Wye (1971) – nuclear weapons personnel
· Similar kind of duality of self
· Personal responsibility diffused
· Emotional and moral reactions blunted
· Never told the targets
· No one person can feel solely responsible
· Often work in pairs in missile silos so conformity issues as well
Language:- crews don’t “fire” missiles, they “enable launch procedures”
Criticisms of Milgram?
-Ethics (e.g. Baumrind, 1964):- (don’t talk about in essay)
– Caused harm to participants?
-Attitudes to trust and authority n Stress, self-image
· – No true informed consent?
· – Encouraged participants to continue when they wanted to quit
-Ecological validity (e.g. Fromm, 1974)
– Baumrind – lab is a strange setting
-Nazi comparison is spurious
Milgram’s response (1964)
· – Only 1.3% of Ps had negative feelings about taking part
· – Psychiatric assessment found no harm caused
· – Experimental lab IS a valid setting for study of obedience
– It may be a good thing to make people question authority more!
