Milgram - the electric shock experiment

Question 1

What was Milgram testing in his experiment?

Answer 1

Obedience

Question 2

Define the term ‘obedience’

Answer 2

A form of social control in which an individual follows a direct order, usually from someone they see as an authority figure.

Question 3

When did Milgram carry out his experiment?

Answer 3

1963

Question 4

How many men were present in the experiment?

Answer 4

40 American men (aged 20-50) volunteered to take part in the study

Question 5

Explain Milgram’s procedure

Answer 5

A volunteer arrived at the lab, and introduced to another volunteer (which was actually a confederate)
They drew lots to see who would be the ‘teacher’ and who would be the ‘learner’ - the draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the confederate was always the learner.
An experimenter was also involved (also a confederate, dressed in a grey lab coat).
The learner (‘Mr Wallace’) was strapped into a chair, in another room, and wired up with electrodes.
The teacher was given a small shock to experience for themselves - this was the only genuine shock in the procedure.
The learner has to remember pairs of words. Each time he made an error, the teacher delivered a stronger (fake) electric shock by pressing switches on a ‘shock machine’.
A tape recording of the learners reaction was used for all the participants. When the teacher got to 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall, yelling, and then gave no response to the next question.

Question 6

What was the point of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 6

The study aimed to to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter) ordered the participant (teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock to the learner, located in a different room (in 15-volt steps, up to 450 volts).

Question 7

How many volts did the electric shocker go up to?

Answer 7

450 volts

Question 8

What were the 4 “prods” that were used by the experimenter in Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 8

1. “Please continue/ Please go on”
2. “The experiment requires you to continue”
3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue”
4. “You have no other choice you must go on”

Question 9

(percentages)

What were Milgram’s findings?

Answer 9

100% of participants gave shocks up to 300 volts.
12.5% stopped at 300 volts (5 participants)
65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts.

Question 10

What were the observations of participants (qualitative data) in Milgram’s study?

Answer 10

Sweating, trembling, biting their lips etc, and 3 of them had uncontrollable seizures.

Question 11

What was an alternative interpretation of Milgram’s findings?

Answer 11

Haslem et al (2014) suggested the first 3 verbal prods appeal to ‘science’, whereas the 4th prod demanded obedience.
According to the 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.

Question 12

What were Milgram’s conclusions?

Answer 12

The participants were shown to be mostly obedient to the authority of the researcher.
Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict behaviour. They estimated that no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts. The students underestimated how obedient the participants would be.

Question 13

Give 2 strengths of Milgram’s work

Answer 13

1. Study replications - Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary/ game show. Participants were paid to give (fake) shocks to the participants (actors) in front of a studio audience. 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
2. Good external validity - Milgram claimed that his lab-based experiement was reflected in real-life authority relationships. Hofling et al. (1966) nurse study showed that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders. This showed that Milgram’s theory could be generalised with the population

Question 14

Give 2 limitations of Milgram’s work

Answer 14

1. Lacks internal validity - It was suggested that the participants guessed that the shocks were fake (they were “play acting”), therefore Milgram wasn’t testing what he had intended to test - obedience.
2. Ethical issues - Milgram’s deception was criticised. Being allocated roles wasn’t ‘random’, the shocks weren’t real. Baumrind argued that deception is a betrayal of trust that damages the reputation of psychologists and their research. The volunteer may have also suffered from psychological distress.

Question 15

What is a situational variable?

Answer 15

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour.

Question 16

What were Milgram’s 3 different situational variables?

Answer 16

Proximity, location and uniform

Question 17

Explain what is meant by the situational variable ‘proximity’

Answer 17

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to.

Question 18

Describe the proximity in Milgram’s original study

Answer 18

The teacher and student were in adjoining rooms

Question 19

What 3 proximity variations were there?

Answer 19

1. The teacher and learner were in the same room
2. The teacher had to actually put the learners hand on the shocker
3. The experimenter left the room and gave the instructions over the phone.

Question 20

Describe the proximity in Milgram’s ‘proximity variation’, and give the results

Answer 20

The teacher and the learner were in the same room, and obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

Question 21

Describe the proximity in Milgram’s ‘Touch proximity variation’, and give the results

Answer 21

The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the ‘electric shock’ plate to recieve the electric shock, and obedience then dropped to 30%

Question 22

Describe the proximity in Milgram’s ‘Remote proximity variation’, and give the results

Answer 22

The experimenter left the room and gave instructions on the telephone. Obedience reduced further to 20.5%, and participants also tried to pretend that they had given the shock, when they hadn’t, or gave weaker ones.

Question 23

What are the conclusions from the proximity variations?

Answer 23

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Question 24

Explain what is meant by the situational variable ‘location’

Answer 24

The place where an order is issued.

Question 25

Describe the location in Milgram’s original experiment

Answer 25

The experiment was held at prestigious Yale University, so it looked professional.

Question 26

Describe the location in Migram’s location variation experiment, and say how the results changed

Answer 26

Milgram ran the experiment in a run-down office block instead, and therefore, obedience fell to 47.5%

Question 27

Explain what is meant by the situational variable ‘uniform’

Answer 27

People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority.

Question 28

Describe the uniform in Milgram’s original experiment

Answer 28

The experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a sign of authority.

Question 29

Describe the uniform in Milgrams uniform variation experiment, and give the results

Answer 29

The experimenter left the room and someone in “normal clothes” came to continue the experiment. Obedience rates dropped to 20% (the lowest of all variables)

Question 30

Give 1 strength and 1 weakness of Milgram’s situational variable experiments

Answer 30

Strength - Research support
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 suit and tie. The confederates then asked random members of the public to do tasks such as pick up litter. People were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one in the suit jacket and tie. Supports the view that a situation variable, such as uniform, affects obedience.

Weakness - “Obedience alibi”
Milgram’s findings are an ‘excuse’ for obedience - suggesting that it is the situation and not the person who’s responsible. Mandel (1998) claims that is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control. Milgram’s situational perspective is dangerous because it ignores the roles of discrimination, racism and prejudice played in the Holocaust.