Social: Milgram's Study Into Obedience (1966)

Question 1

What is the aim of Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 1

To investigate how obedient P’s will be when given orders from an authority figure which would break their moral judgement and harm another person.

Question 2

What was the sample of Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 2

A volunteer sample of 40 males between the ages of 20-50 from the New Haven area. Their jobs ranged between unskilled and professional.

Question 3

Where was the baseline study conducted?

Answer 3

Yale Uni in an Interaction Laboratory (authority setting)

Question 4

How much were P’s offered for taking part?

Answer 4

$4.50 to take part in the study of memory (what they were told).

Question 5

What was the procedure of the study?

Answer 5

1. P’s met experimenter (wearing a grey lab coat), and another ‘volunteer’ (Mr Wallace - confederate of the study).
2. Drew rigged lots (both said teacher).
3. Teacher (P) was shown Mr Wallace being placed in electric chair and having electrodes placed on his arms, with conductive gel applied.
4. P receives 15v shock sample.
5. P shown shock generator.
6. P instructed to increase shock each time a question was answered incorrectly.
7. Learner complained about his heart and demanded to be let out, refusing to continue.
8. 300v, learner pounded on the wall. Repeated this until 315v level then went silent.
9. Researcher used standardised verbal prods, and experiment ended at 450v (or until P refused to continue - P given right to withdraw. ).

Question 6

What was the experimenter wearing?

Answer 6

Grey lab coat (shows authority)

Question 7

Why was conductive gel applied to Mr Wallace? (quote)

Answer 7

“To prevent any burns or blisters.”

Question 8

What did the experimenter say about the shocks?

Answer 8

“Although they will be painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage.”

Question 9

What was written on the shock generator?

Answer 9

Thirty swithces which increassed in 15v increments - labelled 15 (slight shock) to 450 (DANGER - severe shock). Last two switches said “XXX.”

Question 10

Could the teacher see the learner?

Answer 10

No, but they could hear him clearly through the wall.

Question 11

What did the learner shout out after being shocked?

Answer 11

• 75, 95 and 105v = *grunts*.
• 120v = “Shocks are getting painful.”
• 150v = “Get me out of here, I refuse to go on!”

Question 12

Were P’s given the right to withdraw?

Answer 12

Yes, but verbal prods from the experimenter made It hard for the experimenter to withdraw.

Question 13

What verbal prods were used by the experimenter?

Answer 13

• “Please continue.”
• “The experiment requires you to continue.”
• “It’s absolutely essential that you continue.”
• “You have no other choice but to continue.”

Question 14

What were the results of Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 14

• All 40 P’s went to atleast 300v.
• 65% went to 450v.
• Although most obeyed, there were signs of moral strain…
  
  • Uncontrollable seizures
  • Nervous laughter
  • Trembling
  • Groaning

Question 15

Were the P’s debriefed after the study?

Answer 15

Yes. They were told full aims of the study, reunited with Mr Wallace and reassured their behaviour was normal.

Question 16

What were the conclusions of Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 16

Shows the power of authority over behaviour. Even when P’s were clearly upset by what they had to do, they saw no alternative except to obey.

Question 17

What was the aim of variation 7?

Answer 17

To see if the proximity of the experimenter affected the level of obedience. So the experimenter was in contact with the teacher by telephone.

Question 18

What was the sample of variation 7?

Answer 18

Same as baseline

Question 19

What was the procedure for variation 7?

Answer 19

Same as the baseline but contacted the teacher by phone rather than being in the room.

Question 20

What were the results of variation 7?

Answer 20

• Obedience fell sharply to 22.5%.
• Some tried to give lower shocks than they were told to give as they thought they weren’t being observed (tried to lie).

Question 21

Conclusions from variation 7?

Answer 21

Easier to disobey when the experimenter wasn’t in the room. Proximity is important.

Question 22

What was the aim of variation 10?

Answer 22

To see if obedience would be affected by the location; took place in a rundown office block in Broadwalk rather than Yale.

Question 23

What was the sample of variation 10?

Answer 23

The same as the baseline?

Question 24

What was the procedure of variation 10?

Answer 24

The same as the baseline apart from taking place in a rundown office block in Bridgeport.

Question 25

What were the results of variation 10?

Answer 25

More doubts about study. * One made notes and asked himself many questions about the legitimacy of the study. Obedience did not fall much * 47.5% reached max voltage compared to 65% in the original. Milgram did not think it was a sig difference.

Question 26

What are the conclusions from variation 10?

Answer 26

The idea of having a legitimate setting is backed by evidence, albeit hardly a significant one. Milgram says people will deposit money in prestigious banks and those that are not, so people will obey experiments regardless of where they are.

Question 27

What was the aim of experiment 13?

Answer 27

To see whether an order given by someone without authority is followed/carried out.

Question 28

What was the sample of variation 13?

Answer 28

20 males who volunteered.

Question 29

What is the procedure of variation 13?

Answer 29

1. Experimenter gave instructions about administering the shock, but then gets 'called away' and leaves the room. 2. The P thinks the accomplice, initially given the task of recording times, is a participant like them. 3. The accomplice (another confederate) suggests that the teacher should increase the shocks in 15v increments for each question the learner gets wrong.

Question 30

What were the results of variation 13?

Answer 30

* 20% obedience. * Ordinary man was not an authority figure so hard to obey his commands/easy to break away.

Question 31

What were the results of variation 13a?

Answer 31

* Accomplice (Mr Williams) shocked the man rather than the P. * 16/20 watched the accomplice shock Mr Wallace. * All 16 protested - 5 of whom tried to disconnect the power. * Other 11 allowed the man to go to 450v (68.75%).

Question 32

What were the conclusions from variation 13?

Answer 32

Obedience levels fell dramatically with an ordinary man giving the orders who was perceived to have no authority. P's didn't like seeing the 'ordinary man' giving shocks, but were helpless.

Question 33

How generalisable is Milgram's study?

Answer 33

- Used volunteer sample who are likely to be obedient: does not represent all of society. BUT + volunteers listen to instructions and take procedure seriously which is representative of people in real-life situations of power being misused. + used 780 Ps across all variations. BUT - only used 40 P's or less in each variation so anomalies (e.g. gullible, timid or cruel people) may spoil the results. - All male sample which cannot be generalised to women, and all American which may not be generalisable to other cultures. Time locked to 1960s with a different culture. BUT + variation 8 tested women and found them to be identically obedient to men. + Several cross-cultural variations of Milgram's study have been conducted, all showing high levels of obedience. BUT - many had different procedures to Milgram (e.g. Acona and Pareyson in Italy only went to 330v compared to Milgram's 450v).

Question 34

How reliable was Milgram's study?

Answer 34

+ Standardised procedure which has high applicability (19 variations of baseline from M between 1961 and 1962). Burger replicated aspects of variation 5, 8 and 17 and followed M's script as much as possible (indicating high reliability). + M filmed parts of the study so people could view his findings (inter-rater reliability). + Used standardised prods by the experimenter, tape-recorded responses from Mr Wallace and the fact the Teacher cannot see Mr Wallace (no dif in how he looks between each test). - Gina Perry criticism (2012). M did not follow standardised procedure (John Williams the experimenter admitted to her) and was only strict about prods in the first study. Afterwards, Mr Williams was free to improvise. This made obedience in the variations seem higher than it really was.

Question 35

How applicable was Milgram's study?

Answer 35

* Demonstrated how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. * E.g. wear symbols of authority (uniform) and justify their authority with reference to a "greater good." * M linked his findings to the My Lai massacre * Better understanding of blind obedience means tragedies could be prevented in the future. * E.g. soldiers could be trained to report and refuse orders that would be war crimes.

Question 36

How valid was Milgram's study?

Answer 36

- ecological validity: artificial task (teachers aren't asked to deliver electric shocks to learners). BUT + M replied saying events like the Holocaust were unusual aswell and that people in these situations felt similarly to his P's (dropped into unfamiliar situation and didn't know how to respond). - critics claim P's were acting (they knew or suspected something was up) Gina Perry said P's wrote to M after pointing out that they could hear Mr Wallaces cries of pain coming from speakers and not the room next door (e.g. variation 7, pressed a lower leaver and cries of pain intensified)(P's also suspicious of shabby state of electrodes). BUT + their visible distress counts against this. - Gina Perry claims M's data shouldn't be trusted: alleged that M was an ambitious young scholar who manipulated data to make it look as if we have a "Nazi inside all of us" to make himself famous. * e.g. variation 8 experimenters wouldn't let women back out even after using 4 prods as it was important (to M) that men and women both experience agentic state (otherwise it looks like male agg not obedience). If she's right then the claim that men and female obedience is identical is invalid. - Milgram's claim that a 17.5% drop in obedience in variation 10 was not significant provides evidence that he was determined to conclude that obedience is high. (usually a drop thgat big would be significant).

Question 37

How ethical was Milgram's study?

Answer 37

- P's wellbeing ignored. BUT + argued, after holocaust and My Lai, a scientific understanding of obedience was so important that it justified the research. - Deceived about shocks and didn't give informed consent (were told that they were in a memory test and not an obedience test). BUT + the study couldn't have been conducted if P's knew about the true aims of the study (would've definitely disobeyed if they knew). - Prods removed right to withdraw. - Downplayed seriousness of distress, claiming P's experienced "excitement) similar to watching a scary movie, not long lasting trauma. BUT + Milgram extensively debreifed his P's and went to lengths to show no lasting harm had befallen them.