Milgrams test of obedience Flashcards
Background MIlgram
Milgram was a Jew who’s family had fled Nazi
persecution – he was therefore interested in the
holocaust
Background Asch’s influence
He was intrigued by Solomon Asch’s studies of
conformity (Asch, 1951
Background and aims
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
Diverse sample (P1)
Sample was diverse – broad range of occupations and ages, mostly male. Participants turn up at lab and meet another participant
Basic procedure 2
Fake random role selector to select participant as “teacher.” Shock generator machine and sample shock (45v) based on an aggression machine that was invented in 1961. Read words and test memory. Each mistake punished with shock increasing per mistake (15-450, 15 each time) If participant became reluctant experimenter/confed used a script with prompts
Room Layout
Layout
Experimenter sat behind the teacher who faced away the wall . on the otherside of teachers right wall was participant.
Script
“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”
Basic dependant measures
Max voltage participant willing to shock to —v
Verbal scripts
Video recording
Debrief material
findings (6 marks)
Students, behavioural scientists and laypersons asked to predict. All predicted none would reach max voltage
Pilor study everyone went to 450
Mean disobey voltage = 360 v (180v “cant take it” 270 “ARGHHHHH”)
65% went all the way
No participant didnt reach 300
Became infamous and global from this experiment
Variations & results
Participant left alone = 50v mean
2 experimenters present who argues - none continued
Run down block instead of university - 48% fully obedient
Experimenter replaced by layperson - 20% obedient
Touch proximity - 30% fully obedient
Prox or learner decreased - 93%
Prox of authority reduced (orders by phone) - 20.5%
Cross culture results
Cross culture
Holland (92%)
Spain (over 90)
USA (85%)
Italy ^
Germany ^
Austria 80%
Jordan 62
UK 50
AUS men 40
AUS women 12
quote; distress
“I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse.” Participants showed visual signs of distress like nervous laughter, trembled, bit lips, moaned, Textbook definition of TWEAKING!!
Early explanations; validity
Participants clocked it was fake?; no, almost all Ps said they believed it to be real and painful.
Early explanations; aged poorly?
Relic of time? Maybe but unlikely, Burger in 2009 replicated only up to 150 but similar levels in obedience of all genders.
Early explanations; mean participants?
Mean participants? Dangers of fundamental attribution error (ross 1977) 911 and 7/7 playlist. Elms and Milgram found no significant personality differences
Real life case studies
Eichmann (arendt 1963)
My lai
Iraq
Burger 2007
Burger 2007 replication
Tested 18 men and found 65% agreed to administer painful replication. 22 women signed up and 73% yielded to orders. Ps had high lvl of education 40 percent Bach and 20 M degrees. Very diverse group 54 white, 18 asian, 13 Latin, 8.6 asian and 4.3 Afr American.
Agentic shift + quote
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)
results of agentic shift
Altered conscious almost
Believed to have No long term consequences
Human groups evolved requiring a basic propensity to structural organisation
Obedience is often rewarded
Socially organised evil
Explanations; responsibility
Displacemetn of responsibility; powerful way of keeping self esteem and self concept in the face of threat (Berkowitz)
explanations; Normality of the sitch
Norms - P entered into a contract
Explanations; Wye
Buffer (technology) see Wye, 1971; Fisher (1981) Incremental steps – ‘foot in the door’ technique
Wye nuclear weapons personell; 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 middle silos so they can conformity issues well, crew dont fire missiles, they enable launch procedures.
Other explanations
Yale - rep high
Cause respected too - scientific
Surveillance increases pressure and evidence of agentic
Little time to think due to pressure
Focusing on getting it over and done with
Devalueing learner - he was stupid so he deserved it
A03; ethics
Ethics (e.g. Baumrind, 1964):- – Caused harm to participants? Attitudes to trust and authority Stress, self-image – No true informed consent? – Encouraged participants to continue when they wanted to quit
A03 criticism; ecological validity
Ecological validity (e.g. Fromm, 1974) – Baumrind – lab is a strange setting Nazi comparison is spurious
A03 criticism - Milgram responds
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 thinf to make people question authority more
Recent criticisms
Is the banality of evil argument overplayed
Woek of cesarani 2005 on eichmann
Is personality really unimportant
Blass 1991
Alternate explanations
Haslam et. al. (2014) – engaged followership model: “Our own research shows that tyranny does not result from blind conformity to rules and roles, it is a creative act of followership that flows from identification with authorities who represent vicious acts as virtuous.”
