Social Area: Milgram Outline

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To devise a technique for studying obedience in which participants would be ordered to administer to a victim what they believed to be an electric shock and discover the point at which participants would refuse to go on. This would help him attempt to explain the atrocities committed by Nazis during the Second World War.

Question 2

Hypothesis

Answer 2

The presence of a figure of authority will increase the level of obedience a participant will exhibit at a command.

14 final year Yale psychology students predicted that a mean estimate of 1.2%, a minority of participants, would be obedient to the 400 volt maximum.

Question 3

Sampling Method

Answer 3

Self-selected, participants were obtained through a newspaper advertisement and direct mailing, and were paid $4.50 simply for showing up.

Question 4

Participants

Answer 4

40 males between the ages of 20 and 40 drawn from New Haven and its surrounding communities.

Question 5

Personnel and Locale

Answer 5

The experiment was conducted on the grounds of Yale University. The experimenter was played by a 31-year-old teacher wearing a grey coat with a stern demeanour and the victim was played by a 47-year-old accountant found ‘likeable’.

Question 6

Procedure

Answer 6

• The experimenter explained that the purpose of the experiment was to find out about the effect of punishment on learning.
• The participant and actor drew slips of paper to decide who played the role of teacher and learner, but this was rigged so that the participant was always the teacher.
• The learner was strapped into an ‘electric chair’ apparatus connected to an electric shock generator in the other room. A sample shock of 45 volts was administered to the wrist of the teacher to convince them of its authenticity. The experimenter informed that although the shocks maybe painful, they would do no permanent tissue damage.
• The electric shock generator consisted of 30 switches, clearly labelled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450. Verbal designations were also assigned, going from Slight Shock, to Danger: Severe Shock and after this XXX.
• The teacher was instructed by the experimenter to administer a shock every time he gave an incorrect response, and was asked to move up a level each time. The learner had a predetermined pattern of 3 wrong answers to one correct answer.
• The actor made noises to indicate the shocks were causing him pain. When the shock hit 300 volts, the learner kicked the wall. After that, he gave no response. The teacher was then instructed that a 5-10 absence of an answer was treated as a wrong answer and he was to administer a shock.
• If the participant indicated unwillingness to go on, the experimenter responded with a series of standardised ‘prods’, such as “It is absolutely essential that you continue”.
• After the experiment, all participants were debriefed and any tensions relieved, as the true meaning of the experiment was explained.
• Any participant who broke off prior to administering the thirtieth and final shock level was deemed a ‘defiant’ participant, the rest were ‘obedient’.

Question 7

Results

Answer 7

No participants broke off before the 300 volt shock level, and 26 out of 40 (65% of participants) obeyed the orders of the experiment and delivered the 40 volt maximum shock.
Fourteen (35% of participants) showed signs of extreme tension, e.g. trembling, sweating, groaning.

Question 8

Conclusions

Answer 8

1. The presence of an authority figure produces extremely strong tendencies to obey.
2. The pressure to obey in a clearly immoral situation generates extraordinary tension and emotional strain.