Obedience (Milgram) Flashcards
How many participants were involved
40
What participants were involved
White American males
Aim of Milgrams obedience study
To investigate whether ordinary Americans would obey an authority figure, even when the instructions involved harming another person
Procedure of Milgrams obedience study
40 American male volunteers were assigned the role of the “teacher”.A confederate (Mr. Wallace) always played the “learner”, while a stern-looking experimenter (also a confederate) was present, dressed in a lab coat. The learner was strapped into a chair with electrodes and the teacher saw this.The teacher was told to administer an electric shock to the learner every time he gave a wrong answer to a word-pair task. Shocks started at 15 volts and increased in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts.The shocks were not real, but the teacher believed they were. At 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no further responses.After 315 volts, the learner was completely silent. If the teacher hesitated or wanted to stop, the experimenter used verbal prods, E.G Please continue.” “The experiment requires that you continue.”
When was the study conducted
1963
Findings of Milgrams study (1963)
-100% of participants continued to 300volts
-12.5% stopped at 300Volts
-65% continued to 450Volts (highest level)
-Many participants showed visible signs of stress and discomfort, such as sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, or nervous laughter.Some participants experienced extreme tension, and three even had full-blown seizures.
Conclusion of Milgrams (1963) study
-People are highly obedient to authority figures, even when it involves causing harm to others.
-The experiment showed that individuals are willing to follow orders that go against their morals, highlighting the powerful influence of authority, perceived legitimacy, and gradual escalation on obedience.
Evaluation of Milgram’s (1963) study
-Research support
-High internal validity???
-Ethical issues
-Lacks generalisability
-The findings aren’t due to blind obedience
What further research support does Milgram’s study have
-The 2012 French TV documentary/game show, which replicated Milgram’s obedience experiment, provides strong support for his findings.
-In this version, 80% of contestants obeyed orders to administer the maximum 460 volts to an actor who appeared to be unconscious. Despite the apparent harm being caused, many contestants exhibited signs of anxiety, such as sweating and hesitation, similar to the behaviors of Milgram’s participants.
-This demonstrates that, even in a contemporary and more casual setting, people remain highly susceptible to obeying authority figures, underlining the enduring power of authority in influencing obedience. The results reinforce Milgram’s conclusion that authority figures can lead individuals to act in ways that go against their moral beliefs.
Why can it be argued that Milgrams study had a high internal validity
The study’s setting and procedure created a realistic environment where participants believed they were administering real shocks, making their reactions more authentic.
Why can it be argued that Milgrams study lacked internal validity
-Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants in Milgram’s study may have guessed that the electric shocks were fake, leading them to “act” rather than genuinely obeying the authority figure. This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics—cues within the experimental setup that led them to behave in ways they thought were expected, rather than truly following orders. This critique was supported by
-Perry’s (2012) discovery, which found that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real.
-This suggests that the high levels of obedience observed in Milgram’s study might not have been due to genuine compliance, but rather to participants’ belief that the situation was not real, thus undermining the study’s validity and questioning whether it truly measured obedience.
What ethical issues came up in the study
-Decetion
-Protection from harm
-Informed consent
Explain why the study had these ethical issues
.-Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study—they were led to believe it was an investigation into the effects of punishment on learning, when in fact, the real aim was to study obedience to authority. This deception meant they were not fully aware of what the study involved, which undermines their ability to give informed consent.
-Furthermore, many participants experienced emotional distress, showing signs of severe anxiety such as sweating, trembling, and nervous laughter as they believed they were harming another person. This raises serious concerns about psychological harm.
-These ethical shortcomings limit the credibility of the study, as it failed to uphold key ethical principles designed to protect participants’ well-being.
Why does the study lack generalisability
-Sample consisted of 40 American men-findings can’t be applied to women or people from other cultures.
-The use of volunteer sampling introduces bias - those who chose to take part may have been more obedient or interested in authority than the general population.
-Conducted in an artificial lab setting - reduces the studies ecological validity ( findings cant be applied to obedience in real life situations
Who found evidence that Milgram’s findings are not the result of blind obedience
Haslam et al (2014)
What did Haslam et al find (2014)
-Applied social identity theory to explain obedience, finding that participants obeyed the first three prods, which encouraged identification with the scientific goals of the study, but when the fourth prod demanded blind obedience, participants were more likely to disobey. This suggests that obedience in Milgram’s study may not have been due to blind submission to authority but rather a willingness to comply with a cause they identified with.
-This highlights the role of social identity in obedience, suggesting that people may obey as long as they feel their actions align with a social identity they support, challenging the simplicity of Milgram’s conclusions.
What did Sheridan and King (1972) find (counterpoint of Orne and Holland and Perry- IV)
Their participants gave real shock to a puppy. 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
This suggests that the obedience in Milgrams study is genuine
