Stanley Milgram

Aim

To investigate what level of obedience would be shown when subjects were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

Method used

Controlled observation (experimental method)

Conducted in a room at Yale University.

Why can’t we classify this a normal lab. experiment? No control condition; no IV

Advantages & Disadvantages

Control over environment, therefore controls confounding variables

High reliability Easy to record; used

VCR for later analysis Quantitative and

qualitative data collected

High levels of experimental realism.

Lack of ecological validity – participants know they are taking part in a study.

Low in mundane realism: giving electric shocks to someone is not a normal, everyday activity.

Sample

40 males between the ages of 20 and 50 From New Haven area of America Range of occupations (postal clerks,

salesmen, engineers)

Self selected sample (volunteers): Recruited by newspaper article and direct mail advertising, asking for volunteers to take part in study of learning and memory at Yale University. Paid $4.00

You can see that a wide range of

occupations were sampled

Milgram’s advertisement

Strengths of sample

Representative: different ages, occupations, and educational levels.

Limitations of sample

No women - androcentric Ethnocentric – all American Self-selected – they all responded to

the ad, so may all have similar personality types eg extrovert enough to want to take part in research.

No IV or DV! If it was considered an experiment

what would the IV and DV be? IV: prods given by the experimenter DV: shock level that the P goes up to Measured by: number of volts

Controls

All given exactly the same response of the “learner” by tape

All were given the same prods by experimenter.

Procedure

• The participant was paired with a colleague of Milgram (the stooge was Mr Wallace)

• Told they were taking part in an experiment on Memory / Learning

• Electric Shock machine– slight/severe/danger of severe shock

• Volts ranged between 15 - 450 volts

Milgram’s “learner”

• The participant (teacher) given a mild 15v electric shock to convince them the shocks were genuine. This was the only real shock given.

• Then stooge wired up to the electric shock machine in next room

• The experiment began

The “shock machine”

Labels on the shock generator

Shock generator

This machine had 30 switches each labelled with a number from 15-450 volts, in increments of 15. It was also labelled with intensity e.g. very strong shock (195 volts).

The learning Task

• Teacher read series of word pairs – e.g. blue sky, green grass, red balloon

• Learner had to memorise these• Teacher then reads out one word

– e.g. Green …..• Learner to respond with the ‘pair match’

The experimental set-up. Venue: a room in Yale University

Wrong answers were to be punished with an electric shock.

Each time the “learner” got an answer wrong, the voltage was increased. The teacher also had to announce the voltage each time, thus reminding him of the increasing intensity.

No answer was to count as a wrong answer.

Milgram’s procedures

If the subject hesitated, the researcher used a verbal “prod”.

Prod 1: Please continue Prod 2: The experiment requires

that you continue Prod 3: It is absolutely essential

that you continue Prod 4: You have no other choice,

you must go on.

If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer any permanent physical injury, the experimenter said

“Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on.”

If the teacher said that the learner clearly wanted to stop, the experimenter said:

“Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.”

Milgram’s procedure

Watch the experiment

Write up the procedure

Use the textbook to write up the procedure.

P153/4 Use the headings from the textbook:

Procedure▪ Learning task▪ Shock generator▪ Feedback from victim e.g. signs of protest by

victim. ▪ Experimenter feedback. Make sure you include

the prods used by the “teacher” in this section.

Prediction of results

Estimate how many people you think continued up to 300 volts (when the learner pounded the wall)

Continued past 315 volts (when the learner fell silent)

Continued up to 450 volts (marked XXX)

Milgram’s results

Number who stopped at “slight shock” (60V)

0 Number who stopped at “moderate

shock” (120V) 0 Number who stopped at “strong shock”

(180V) 0 Number who stopped at “very strong

shock” 0

Milgram’s Results

Number who stopped at Intense Shock (300V):

5 Number who stopped at Extreme

Intensity Shock (360V) 8 Number who stopped at Danger: Severe

Shock (375V) 1 Number who continued to maximum

possible shock (450V): 26 ie 65% of the subjects were

prepared to kill someone in a learning experiment and administer the full 450 volts.

Distribution of breakoff points

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Slight

shoc

k

Mod

erat

e sh

ock

Strong

shoc

k

Very s

trong

shoc

k

Inte

nse

shoc

k

Extrem

e int

ensit

y sho

ck

Dange

r: Sev

ere

shoc

kXXX

Nu

mb

er o

f p

arti

cip

ants

Qualitative data- comments from some participants:

“I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking…. Well it’s not fair to shock the guy….these are terrific volts. I don’t think it’s humane…. Oh, I cant go on with this.”

“He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a man…..I’m sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurt his heart. You take your [money]”

Preliminary notions

Prior to conducting his study, Milgram had interviewed psychiatrists, students, and middle-class adults, asking what level of shock they believed people would administer before refusing to continue.

The psychiatrists predicted that most people would not go beyond the 150-volt mark.

Psychology undergraduates predicted that only 3% out of 100 participants would continue to 450 volts.

Results

Use the textbook (p.156) to summarise the findings.

Use the following headings: Preliminary notions- what was predicted

by others Experimental results

▪ Subjects accept situation▪ Signs of extreme tension

Distribution of scores Qualitative data

Overall findings

Finding 1- People were obedient, even though

1. they had been taught from childhood that it is wrong to hurt others

2. The experimenter had no special powers to enforce his commands

3. Disobedience would bring no material loss to the participants.

Finding 2- The experiment created great tension in the participants, causing sweating, trembling etc.

WHY WERE THE SUBJECTS SO OBEDIENT?

During the experiment, almost all subjects appeared very distressed. They were observed to sweat, stutter, bite their lips, groan, dig their fingernails into their flesh…

And three of them had full-blown seizures.

SO WHY DID THEY REMAIN OBEDIENT?

Why were the subjects so obedient?

Within your groups, try to list the factors which you think may have contributed to the subjects’ obedience.

We’ll display the flipchart paper around the class; you’ll have a chance to walk around the class and see what other people have written.

Why did they obey?

1. Prestigious university2. Subjects assume that the experimenter knows what he

is doing, so should be followed. 3. Subjects assume that the learner has consented to take

part4. The subject doesn’t want to disrupt the exp because he

feels he is under obligation5. Subject feels under obligation to continue because he

was paid6. Subjects believe that role of learner was chosen by

chance so learner can’t complain7. Novel situation and subject doesn’t know how to behave8. Subject assumes discomfort is temporary9. Since the subject has played the game up to shock level

20, the subject assumes the learner is willing to continue10. Subject is torn between meeting demands of victim and

experimenter11. The two demands are not equally pressing and

legitimate12. Little time to resolve the conflict; doesn’t know the

victim will remain silent for the rest of the experiment13. The conflict is between two deeply ingrained tendencies:

not to harm someone and to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities who ultimately hold the responsibility

Discussion of results

1. The study suggests a SITUATIONAL explanation for people’s behaviour. They are obedient due to factors in the environment, rather than due to individual personality traits.

2. Milgram suggested that the results can be explained AGENTIC STATE THEORY. This is where people give up their own responsibility, deferring to those of higher status.

Agentic state theory

The agency theory is that people act as agents of other people. This means that people do not feel responsible for their own actions, and blame their actions on someone else.

This was one of the reasons for obedience in Milgram's experiment because participants knew that the experimenter was responsible for whatever happened to the "student" who was being shocked, therefore they were more likely to obey.

If participants were told that they were responsible for what happens to the "student" then there would have been a lower level of obedience in Milgram's experiment.

What does this study tell us?

From the study we can infer that… people obey authority figures to the extent where they adopt behaviour which contradicts their own values.

This can be seen in the study where … quote quantitative data (facts/figures) that show that people were obedient. Include the qualitative data as well.

Therefore/However….