Milgrams study - behavioural study of obedience Flashcards
Methodology
- conducted in a laboratory so conditions could be controlled
- however it is not an experiment
Participants
- 40 males aged between 20 and 50 years
- advertisement led to participants to believe that they would be taking part in research about memory and learning
- men had a range of jobs from postal clerks to engineers
- educational level varied — from one who had not finished primary school to ones with a doctorate
- each man was paid $4.50 for his participation in the study and payment did not depend on remaining in the study
Procedure
- took place in a lab at yale university
- when participants arrived they were greeted by the experimenter ( a 31 year old man dressed in a grey technicians coat
- another ‘participant was at the lab and both of these men were milgrams accomplices
- participants drew slips of paper to decide which of them would play the role of teacher or learner — the selection was rigged and the naive participant was always assigned the teacher role and the accomplice was assigned the learner role
- both learner and teacher were then taken into the experimental room where the learner was strapped to an electric chair to precent movement and an electrode was placed on the learners wrist linked to a shock generator
Procedure pt 2
The shock machine
- the teacher was taken to the adjoining room and seated in front of the shock generator
- from 15 - 450 volts
- experimenter gave the teacher a sample shock to demonstrate that the machine was real
The learning task
- the teacher was told to administer a shock when the learner gave a wrong answer and to escalate the shock level each time
- the learner was told to make no comment or protest till the shock level of 300 volts was reachrd
- at this point he should pound on the wall but make no further comment
Feedback from experimenter
- experimenter was trained to give a sequence of four standards prods if the teacher hesitated about delivering shock
- ‘please continue’. ‘ the experiment requires that you continue’ ‘ you have no other choice you must go on’
Dehoax
- after research was completed the teacher was dehoaxed and the experiment reunited the teacher and the learner
Findings
Quantitative data
- prior to study milgram surveyed 14 yale psychology students and estimated that 0-3% of the participants would administer 450 volts
- the findings showed this was an underestimate and a large majority continued at the highest level
- at 300 volts five participants refused to continue
- a total of 26 participants administered the full 450 volts so 35% of the participants defied the experiments authority
Qualitative data
- many subjects showed nervousness and a large number showed extreme tension
- 14 participants displayed nervous laughter and smiling — indicated they were acting against own values and punishing the learner
- these participants explained it was not a sadistic laugh and it did not mean they were enjoying the shock
- 3 participants had full blown uncontrollable seizures and one was so violent the research session had to be stopped
Conclusions
milgram suggested there were 13 elements in this situation that contributed to this level of obedience
- the location of the study at a prestigious university provided authority
- participants assumed that experimenter knew what he was doing and had a worthy purpose so should be followed
- participants did not want to disrupt study - felt an obligation to
- novel situation for participants who therefore did not know how to behave
- participants had very little time to resolve the conflicts at 300 volts and did not know the victim would remain silent
- participant assumed discomfort was minimal and temporary
- scientific gains were important
Evaluation
- lacks internal validity as the participants did not believe the internal shocks were real and it would not have made sense if someone in an experiment were to receive fatal shocks
- led to them behaving as they were expected to due to demand characteristics
- further supported by Perry (2012) - she found that participants knew they were not actually hurting anyone and in the follow up questionnaire many participants said they were suspicious because e.g the experiment remained calm
Baumrind claimed milgram caused psychological damage to his participants that could not be justified
- however he claimed that he did not know such high levels of distress would be caused
- 84% of the participants did say afterwards that they were glad to have participated
- potential damage should be weighed against the importance of the findings
However - perry(2012) argued that milgram failed in his duty of care to his participants as many of them were waiting up to a year to be debriefed after believing they had killed someone
- did not have a right to withdraw, were deceived and not protected from harm
Why was this study insightful
- shows that many people are willing to obey destructive order that conflict with their moral principles and commit acts they would not carry out on a daily basis
- shows the influence that authority figures have
