Milgram-obidience-SA Flashcards
Psychology being investigated-Obedience + social pressure
Obedience is a result of social pressure whereby one person complies with the direct order of another, who they perceive to have a higher level of authority than themselves.
Milgram proposed that a system of authority is required for any people living in a community and that people have a strong tendency to be obedient.
Milgram, in his paper (1963), quoting Snow:
“When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have been ever in the name of rebellion. “
Psychology being investigated B
Milgram was also quick to point out the benefits of obedience and social pressures for our society-acts of charity and kindness as a result of social pressures are important for well functioning societies.
A few general explanations for why people are willing to obey others:
-perception of being told to do so by a legitimate authority figure (someone with a higher status in the social hierarchy).
-He also wanted to know the extent to which situational factors, such as location, or dispositional factors, such as personal conscience, were responsible for obedience.
A bit of Background
-Milgram studied obedience to understand the holocaust, believing it required widespread compliance with authority.
-He proposed that it often overrides personal conscience and moral codes and sympathy
-Inspired by Adolf Eichmann’s 1961 trial, where philosopher Hannah Arendt described Eichmann as a bureaucrat simply following orders, raising questions about obedience and responsibility.
-The Eichmann trial was the 1961 trial in Israel of major Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann who was kidnapped in Argentina by Israeli agents
Destructive Obedience
Compliance with the direct or indirect orders of a social, military, or moral authority that results in negative outcomes, such as injury to innocent victims, harm to the community, or the loss of confidence in social institutions.
AIM
To investigate level of obedience when an authority figure orders a person to administer physical punishment to a stranger
-it could have been them
-against own moral codes
Research Methodology
There was only a DV so it cannot be defined as an experiment.
Milgram recorded data VIA observations through 1-way mirrors, and conducted interview with participants after the study, using lab settings.
Design and Variables
-DV: max shock pp was willing to administer before refusing to continue. This was recorded from levels 0-30, 30 representing 450v.
-Obedience was defined by Milgram as delivering the max 450v, and any pp who stopped before was deemed defiant.
-Some photographs taken through 1-way mirror
-Notes taken of unusual behavior and reflection by pps, the duration of shocks also recorded by accurate timers.
SAMPLE
-Consisted of 40 males aged 20-50(demographics), from the New Haven area and region/surrounding areas in USA, with a range of educational levels.
-Volunteer sample VIA a local newspaper advertisement and a direct mail solicitation for a study on memory and learning at Yale.
-Wide range of occupations: white collars. hs teachers, postal clerks, engineers, laborers.
-4.50 dollars reward fee for participation (0.5 for travel expenses)-all kept no matter what.
Procedure Part 1
The study took place in a lab setting at Yale uni, w a male HS teacher playing the role of the experimenter.
One naive pp and a male actor playing the role of learner and teacher, taking part in trials.
The actor was a 47 year old Irish-American accountant who was mild mannered and likeable.
Procedure Part 2
-PP told that they were taking part in a study on he effect of punishment on learning (+ memory and learning), as little was known about this-or how much punishment was best for learning.
-Researcher explained that almost no studies in this area had been conducted on humans, and were bringing ppl together from a range of occupations to test this out.
-PPs then drew a slip of paper from a hat to determine whether they would play role of teacher of learner. This was rigged so that pps always drew first, and role of teacher; both slips wrote teacher.
Procedure Part 3
-Both teacher and learner taken to a room, where learner was strapped(to avoid excessive movement) into an “electric chair” and had an electrode attached to wrist.
-Experimenter explained that while shocks may be extremely painful, they cause no lasting tissue damage.
-The pp then taken to a room next door and positioned in front of the electric shock generator, where they were given a real 45V sample shock. This was applied to wrist and came from battery attached to shock generator when he third switch was pressed.
1963…
idea that women were harmless
-4.50 was significantly more now
Mr Wallace was the
Confederate learner
Procedure-Learning task
This consisted on the learner memorising word-pair associations.
The pps required to read a list of word pairs to learner.
They would then read the first word in each word-pair along with 4 possible options.
Learner required to select an option by pressing a corresponding switch in front of him, which lit up one of 4 quadrants above shock generator.
-If answer was incorrect, the pp was required to administer an electric shock, moving one level higher with each incorrect answer.
The pp was required to announce the voltage level before administering shock.
Procedure-Preliminary Run
-pps undertook a preliminary run of 10 trials in order to practise the procedure so it went smoothly.
-A pre-test had suggested that pps required this to master the ask.
-7 of these trials involved delivering shocks, going up to 105v.
-After the preliminary run, pps given a second list of words for the regular run.
Procedure-Regular Run
When shock levels of 300V and 315V were administered, the learner heard protesting by pounding on wall.
-After 300V, however, he stopped responding to questions VIA switches completely (e.g no response). The pp was told to take no response as an incorrect answer (and i think wait 5-10 seconds).
Procedure-Prods
If a pp expressed an unwillingness to continue with the study, the experimenter used a series of standardized prods in sequence:
1) PROD 1. “Please continue/Please go on”
2)PROD 2: “The experiment requires that you continue”
3)PROD 3: “It is absolutely essential that you continue”
4)PROD 4: “You have no other choice, you must go on”
2 more special prods: If a pp expressed concern about the shocks causing permanent injuries, the experimenter repeated his previous comment + instructed pp to continue, saying: “ Although shocks may be painful, no permanent tissue damage, so please go on”.
If a pp commented on the learner wishing to stop, response was: “Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on, until he has correctly learned all the word pairs, so please go on.”
Final part of Procedure
If a pp refused to continye after the 4th prod, the study ended. The pp then undertook an interview about their experience and met the learner so that he knew he had not been harmed. This was part of what Milgram called the “dehoaxing”, which he believed would mean that the pp left the study in a state of wellbeing.
Results-
Quantitative
-26/40 (65% or 2/3rds) were fully obidient and administeres the max 450V
-40/40 (100%) went up to 300V, which was when the victim first pounded on the wall. At this point 5 pps refused to continue.
Results
-Qualitative
Extreme tension observed: sweating, trembling, lip biting, digging nails into flesh, groaning, stuttering.
14 pps showed signs of nervous laughter and smiling-but in post experiment interview revealed not to be sadistic.
PPs who continued to 450 seemed under extreme stress.
3pps had full blown seizures (on once occasion it was so violently convulsing they had to halt the experiment)-this was a 46 year old encyclopedia salesman who ironically “felt embarrassed for being so out of control”.
14 Point Shock Scale
After experiment pps asked to indicate how painful they thought shocks were on a 14 point scale, from Not at all painful-to Extremely painful. The mode was 14 and the mean 13.42.
Also, some audio tapes and photographs taken through one way mirror + notes of interesting behavior.
Results-
Qualitative- What some pps said
“I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking…well it’s not fair to shock the guy…these are terrific volts. I don’t think this is very humane…Oh I can’t go on with this; no this isn’t right. It’s a hell of an experiment. The guy is suffering in there. No id on’t want to go on. This is crazy”
(Subject refuses to administer more shocks).
“He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue but I can’t do that man…I’m sorry I can’t do that man. It’ll hurt his heart. You take your check…No really, I couldn’t do it.”
List of Pps numbers and shocks.
Slight Shock-Moderate Shock-moderate shock-Strong Shock-Very strong-intense-extreme intensity-danger severe shock-xxx
-5 pps stopped at 300, 4 at 315, 2 at 330, 1 in 345, 1 in 360, 1in 375 and 26 until the end.
Conclusions
Milgram commented on 2 surprising findings in the study:
1) The sheer strength of obedient tendencies in the study. PPs appeared willing to go against their own moral values + obey authority figure-even when harming a stranger.
2)He also noted that following orders to administer electric shocks to another person caused extraordinary tension and emotional strain.
Milgram provided reasons he thought obedience had occurred:
-the prestigious location of the study: Yale University (adds credibility + trust that the study is reasonable, useful, not harmful).
-experiment seen to be a worthy contribution to science and society.
-a sense of obligation + commitment to experimenter
-paid: increasing sense of obligation
-pps were explicitly told shock were not dangerous
-prods urging
-conflict between desire not to harm + to obey authority.
Milgrams 1974 Agency theory
Autonomous state: Ppl direct own actions and take responsibility for results.
Agentic state: Ppl allow others to direct their answers, then pass off responsibility for consequences to person giving orders. So act as agents for another persons will. They almost define themselves as instruments for carrying others’ wishes.
Evaluation-Debrief + Dehoax (+)
ethical issue
-one ethical strength of Stanley Milgram’s research was he pioneered in debriefing pps after study concluded (not common practice at time)
-he arranged reconciliation with learner, who acted in a friendly manner towards pp, reassuring them no harm was done.
-In this way, it was ensured that his pps hypothetically left study in state of wellbeing + any feelings of tension were reduced.
(arguable)
Evaluation-Protection from harm (-)
ethical issue
weakness in potentially suffered psychological harm by pps.
-3 of them had full blown seizures + showed signs of intense stress( along with others)
-likely some may have experiences longer term harm knowing they had been willing to deliver a 450V shock to an innocent man-that technically could have been them, against own morals.
-means some likely left study in a worse psych state than when entering
-man who felt embarrassed
Evaluation-deception (-)
ethical issue
-weakness is that there were several instances f deception in the study . Pps believed that they were taking part in a memory + learning experiment and that learner (a confederate of Milgram) was actually another pp of study, like them , when i reality responses to orders were covertly observed
-it was actually a tape recording
-deceived into believing shocks administered were real
-debrief + dehoax may have led to a lack of trust in psychology and its figures+ authoritarian figures…
Evaluation-Methodological issues-Reliability-Standardisation (+)
-the strength of lab setting is that Milgram was able to exert tight controls over his procedure, e.g standardized given prods, responses of learner + environment. This high level meant the study could be replicated to test for reliability, increasing validity.
Why could the right to withdraw be argued?
e.g imperatives must
Evaluation-Methodological issues-Validity-Demand Characteristics (+)(-)
Strength: The use of a false study aim and covert observations decreased demand characteristics in Milgram’s research. Pps believed the study was about ‘learning and memory’ and were unaware that their reactions were being observed behind a one-way mirror.
This increased the validity of the study, as participants’ obedient or defiant behavior is likely to have been genuine.
Weakness: Some participants suspected that the shocks were not real. Many did not believe that Yale University would allow real harm to participants, leading them to act in a way they believed the experimenter wanted. This reduces the validity of the conclusions about obedience, as fewer participants may have administered shocks if they truly believed them to be real.
Evaluation-Methodological issues-Validity-Mundane realism (-)
Weakness: The study lacks mundane realism. Shocking a stranger for getting an answer incorrect on a memory test is not reflective of a real-life task or situation. This reduces the usefulness of the findings, as they do not reflect obedience situations in everyday life.
Evaluation-use of qualitative data (+)
Strength: Milgram gathered qualitative data through observations and recordings, providing insight into the high levels of tension participants experienced when obeying. Pps’ verbal reactions, debates, and signs of stress—especially when the learner pounded on the wall after 300V—allowed for more detailed data on their responses to the experimenter’s prods.
Evaluation-Objectivity and subjectivity-Use of Quantitative data (+)
Strength: The use of voltage as a dependent variable allowed for objective quantitative data collection. The results required no subjective interpretation from the researcher, ensuring valid findings regarding obedience and defiance as they were free from experimenter bias.
Evaluation-Generalisations and ecological validity-
Generalising beyond the sample (-)
Weakness: Milgram’s study has low population validity, as the sample consisted entirely of American males. The findings may not be generalizable to women or other cultures. Independent behavior is more socially valued in individualist cultures, while obedience is higher in collectivist cultures where group cohesion is prioritized. This limits the ability to apply the findings cross-culturally.
-it was also based in New Haven and region
Evaluation-Generalizing beyond the sample-to everyday life (-)
Weakness: The study was conducted in a laboratory setting under the guise of a study on learning and memory. Participants believed they were taking part in academic research at a prestigious university, which does not reflect real-life obedience situations such as the Holocaust. This reduces the ecological validity of the findings.
Issues and debates-Individual explanations
Individual explanations:
The study supports individual explanations for obedience, as only 65% of participants obeyed.
35% of participants resisted the experimenter’s prods to leave early.
Personal factors, such as sympathy for the victim, overrode obedience to authority and prevented some from continuing.
This highlights individual differences in behavioral responses when orders conflict with moral codes.
Issues and debates-Situational explanations
Situational explanations:
Milgram emphasized situational factors influencing obedience.
Factors such as participants being paid, the study’s ‘elegant’ Yale University setting, and the clear authority of the experimenter in a grey lab coat contributed to high obedience levels.
Participants believed they were advancing knowledge in learning and memory.
These situational factors led to 40 participants reaching at least 300V.
Applications to everyday life
Training and education:
Milgram’s research has been valuable in educating people on resisting obedience when it threatens ethical or moral principles.
His study demonstrated the difficulty of resisting authority figures.
Some armies use this research in training programs for soldiers, emphasizing the importance of questioning and resisting unethical orders.
-military settings
-germans not being unique
-applied to a teacher’s classroom to help disobidient children (by being authoritative, setting clear but ethical punishment, milestones…)
Comments
-Consists of ordering a naive s to administer increasingly more severe punishment to a victim in the context of learning
-variety of intersting behavioral dynamics seen
-some system of authority required of all communal living
-danger:shevere shock
-we can say seniors in psych majors + milgram were somewhat optimistic: provided with detailed description of study, told to carefully reflect and predict behavior of 100 potential subjects (to plot distribution of obedience of 100 Americans6 of diverse occupations, 20-50 years).
-predicted only an insignificant minority would reach the end (3%), with a class mean of 1.2%-very few if any would go beyond very strong shock.
-various occupations and educational levels, including white collar clerks.
