Milgram 1963

Question 1

Aims

Answer 1

• Investigate level of obedience when told by an authority figure to give electric shocks
• Investigate ‘Germans are different hypotheses’ (assumption they obeyed due to blind obedience and not because of who they were)

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

• 40 men aged between 20-50
• Various occupational backgrounds, all from New Haven area of America
• Advert put in local paper & direct mail solicitation asking for volunteers to take part in a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
• paid $4.50 for taking part (received money just for turning up and were told that payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, and that the money was theirs no matter what happened after they arrived.)
• Typical subjects: postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers.
• Subjects ranged in educational level from one who had not finished elementary school, to those who had doctorate and other professional degrees.

Question 3

Method

Answer 3

• Lab based experiment
• Role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old high school teacher of biology, manner was impassive, appearance somewhat stern throughout the experiment, dressed in a grey technician’s coat.
• The victim was played by a 47-yearold accountant, trained for the role; he was of Irish- American stock, whom most observers found mild mannered and likable.

Question 4

Procedure

Answer 4

• Teacher had to give electric shocks (fake) to the learner for every wrong answer, increasing by 15 volts up to 450 volts.
• Learner (in another room) pretended to be in pain and eventually silent.
• An experimenter in a lab coat gave verbal prods (e.g., “Please continue”) if the teacher hesitated.

Question 5

What were the results of Milgram’s 1963 study?

Answer 5

• 65% of participants obeyed fully and went up to the maximum 450 volts.
• 100% went up to 300 volts (when the learner first screamed).
• Many showed visible signs of stress, like sweating, trembling, or nervous laughter.
• Some pleaded to stop, but continued when prodded by the experimenter.

Question 6

What was the conclusion of Milgram’s 1963 study?

Answer 6

• People are surprisingly obedient to authority, even when it goes against their morals.
• Situational factors (like presence of authority, setting, and lack of responsibility) influence obedience more than personality.
• Ordinary people are capable of harmful actions when instructed by an authority figure.

Question 7

Generalisability

Answer 7

• Low
• Chose 40 American men (deliberately ethnocentric) + volunteer sample so limited to those who read and wanted to participate
• Doesn’t represent women, other cultures.
• CP: They were from a variety of backgrounds and ages, allowing for some broader representativeness.

Question 8

Reliability

Answer 8

• High
• Standardised procedure (same prods, same script, same shock generator).
• Replicated multiple times (e.g. by Burger, 2009) with similar obedience rates.
• Consistent findings = high reliability

Question 9

Application

Answer 9

• High
• stimulus for study was Holocaust, it provides strong evidence against the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis and helped remove the negative view of Germans at this time, as 100% of the American male participants went up to 300v and 65% to 450v.
• results suggest that we have a natural tendency to obey authority figures even when we feel that what we are being asked to do is morally wrong. It warns us that blind obedience is possible in any country and has implications for all countries where a malevolent leader may give orders.

Question 10

Validity

Answer 10

• Low ecological val and lacks task val
• Artificial setting, giving fake shocks isn’t typical behavior.
• Some participants may have guessed the shocks weren’t real. - demand charcs
• CP : Most showed real distress, suggesting belief

Question 11

Ethics

Answer 11

• Low
• Deceived on nature of study for which volunteered + administering fake shocks
• However debriefed afterward, results would’ve not been honest without deceiving
• right to withdraw, was good Milgram stated at start money paid to participants theirs regardless of whether continued with the experiment. However, during the experiment the 4 prods used suggested that withdrawal was not possible. This is ethically incorrect. Even so, we should consider whether the experiment would have been valid if the experimenter kept reminding the participant about his right to withdraw.