Stanley Milgram“Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living.”

“…from 1933-1945 millions of innocent persons were systematically slaughtered on command…These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of people obeyed orders.

In August 1944, Adolf Eichmann reported to Heinrich Himmler that his unit had overseen the deaths of approximately 4 million Jews in death camps, and that 2 million had been killed by mobile units. Milgram wanted to investigate what was different about the German disposition to explain this behaviour.

Study 3 - Milgram (1963)Behavioural Study of Obedience

Field of psychology: Social

1. CONTEXT AND AIMS

Context

What is obedience?Obedience refers to a type of social influence that causes a person to act in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority. This implies that the person carrying out the order is being made to do something that they otherwise would not have done.

Who in our society has perceived authority (i.e. who’s orders would you follow without question?)

The first quote from Milgram suggests that some element of obedience is necessary for society to function. If people did not obey laws, or do what others ask, society would fall apart. Milgram argues that obedience serves a number of purposes, and can be used as a force for good.

However, obedience has its dark side. Throughout human history there have been numerous atrocities involving human inhumanity to other humans. The second quote from Milgram argues that these acts could only have been carried out if people obeyed orders. Milgram investigated destructive obedience where orders are obeyed even though the individual understands the negative consequences. Milgram was particularly interested in explaining what happened in the concentration camps during the Second World

War. At Auschwitz for example, there were up to 12,000 deaths a day.

During his trial in 1961, Adolf Eichmann (see right) claimed that he had only been following orders. Many other Nazi’s who stood trial also gave the same defence.

The political theorist Hannah Arendt who observed the trial wrote in 1963 “It would have been comforting indeed to believe that Eichmann was a monster…The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were and still are terribly and terrifyingly normal.”

What implication does this have?

The Germans are different hypothesis

An alternative to the implication above was that there was something about the German personality that allowed the Holocaust to happen.

Adorno et al (1950) proposed that Germans had an Authoritarian Personality. This means…

Adorno et al proposed that people with this type of personality are likely to be prejudiced against minority groups as a result of unconscious hostility arising from a harsh, disciplined upbringing, and that this would be displaced onto groups such as Jews, black people, gypsies etc. This type of explanation relied heavily upon ideas from the ___________________________ approach.

Aims

At the same time as Eichmann was being tried in Israel for his crimes, Milgram was starting his studies at Yale University. Milgram wanted to test the Germans are different hypothesis which explains obedience in terms of dispositional factors.

Milgram aimed to create a situation which allowed him to assess exactly how obedient individuals would be in a controlled situation. He could then vary this situation to assess the variables which would raise, lower or have no effect on the level of obedience.

Milgram placed this advert in a New Haven newspaper. From the people who responded, he

chose his sample.

2. PROCEDURES (pg78)

1. The participants were invited to the laboratory to take part in what they thought was a memory experiment. They were told that they would receive payment regardless of whether or not they stayed in the study.

2. The research took place in a laboratory at Yale University. The ‘experimenter’, a 31 year old man dressed in a grey lab coat, greets them. Another ‘participant’ (both men were actually __________________________) is with the experimenter, a mild-mannered and likeable 47 year old man.

3. ____________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

4. The teacher (the participant) then sees the learner strapped into an “electric chair” apparatus. Leather straps are used to “prevent excessive movement” and an electrode paste “to avoid blisters and burns” is applied before an electrode is placed on the learner’s wrist. The teacher is told that this electrode is linked to a shock generator in the adjoining room.

5. The teacher is then taken to the adjoining room and sat down in front of the shock generator. This machine has 30 switches on it, each showing an incremental rise in voltage start at _______ going to ________ volts. For every four switches there are ‘shock’ labels, starting at ‘slight shock’ ranging to ‘XXX’. On depressing each switch an electric buzzing is heard, a voltage meter moves and various relay clicks are heard.

Number and make-up of participants

Research method used

Laboratory pre-experiment

Experimental design

N/A (as there was only one condition)

Independent variable

Orders from an authority figure

Dependant variable

Maximum voltage administered

In 2006, Derren Brown recreated the Milgram

experiment in his show “The Heist”.

6. The experimenter then uses the third switch on the shock generator (marked 45volts) to give the teacher a ‘sample’ shock.

7. ____________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

8. If the teacher hesitates about delivering the shock or asks for guidance, the experimenter gives them a sequence of 4 verbal prods such as:

A: _____________________________________________

B: _____________________________________________

C: _____________________________________________

D: _____________________________________________

If the participants asked about the wellbeing of the

learner, they were told

______________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

9. Milgram wanted to know if the ‘teachers’ would shock the ‘learner’, and after hearing the protests of the learner, would the teachers continue to administer the shocks? The DV (_________________________) was recorded, which allowed Milgram to put a quantitative value on obedience. He also made detailed observations of the teacher’s behaviour.

12. After the research, the teacher is thoroughly debriefed and the experimenter reunites the teacher and learner. They are then interviewed about their experience in the procedure.

The experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University, the drawing of the roles was made to look random, and care was taken to make the shock machine look genuine. The participants were also given a sample shock. What was the purpose of all of this?

Why were the participants shown the learner being strapped into a chair?

3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Findings

Beforehand, Milgram discussed his experiment with both a group of psychology majors, and a number of colleagues. He asked them to estimate how many participants would administer the full 450volts. They estimated _____ to _____%.

Quantitative dataThe actual results were very different. All participants gave a minimum of 300v (intense shock). This was the point at which the learner began protesting. 5 participants (12.5%) went no further.

26 (65%) of the participants administered the full 450V, labelled as XXX on the machine. The rest of the participants refused to shock any further between 300v and 450v.

The participants who did not disobey were called “obedient” subjects. Those who did disobey were called “defiant” subjects.

Qualitative dataMilgram also recorded the behaviour of the participants during the experiment. Most participants showed signs of extreme tension. The below are some quotes from the original study.

“Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in the experimental condition, and especially upon administering the more powerful shocks…Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bit their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh.”

“One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits. Fourteen of the 40 subjects showed definite signs of nervous laughter and smiling.”

“Full blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. One occasion, we observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment. The subject, a 46 year old

Maximum shock level

No. ppts

15V-285V 0300V 5315V 4330V 2345V 1360V 1375V 1390V 0405V 0420V 0435V 0450V 26

encyclopaedia salesman was seriously embarrassed by his untoward and uncontrollable behaviour.”

Milgram also recorded things said by the 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 this is very humane…Oh I can’t go on with this; no this isn’t right. It’s a hell of an experiment. The guy is suffering in there. No I don’t want to go on. This is crazy.” [the subject refused to give any more shocks]

“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 check…No really I couldn’t do it.” [the subject refused to give any more shocks]

Of the subjects who defied the experimenter, some were highly agitated and even angry, others just got up and walked away.

Of those who stayed until the end, some heaved a sigh of relief that it was over, nervously fumbled some cigarettes or rubbed their eyes. Some shook their heads as if in regret. Some on the other hand remained calm throughout the whole experiment, and displayed only minimal signs of tension.

More Quantitative dataThe participants were sent a follow-up questionnaire. 92% responded

_____%were glad/very glad to take part

_____% were neutral about having taken part

_____% were very sorry to have taken part

_____% said more experiments like this should be carried out

_____% they had learned something of personal importance.

ConclusionsWhat is the main conclusion from Milgram’s study?

Were the participants aware of the emotional consequences of their actions?

Milgram proposed that there were 13 factors that contributed to the high level of obedience observed in this study

1: The prestigious setting of Yale University

__________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

2: Participants assumed the experimenter knew what he was doing

_____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

3: Participants assumed that the learner

____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

4: The participants didn’t want to disrupt the experiment

______________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

5: The sense of obligation was reinforced

___________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

6: Participants believed the roles were assigned by chance

_____________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

7: It was a novel situation for the participant who didn’t know how to behave

_____________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

8: The participant believed that the discomfort and pain was temporary

__________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

9: Since the learner had gone along up to shock level 20 (just under 300V)

________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

10: The participant was torn

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

11: The two demands

____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

12: The participants had very little time to resolve the conflict at 300V and did not

__________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

13: The conflict was between two equally ingrained tendencies

_________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

4. EVALUATING THE METHODOLOGY (pg 80-81)

Method: It took place in a lab. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this in this study? He collected both quantitative and qualitative data. What is the advantage of this?

Reliability : Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s study and found similar results. What does this suggest about reliability?

Experimental (internal) Validity : Orne and Horne (1968) argued that the participants did not believe that the experimental situation was real, and therefore just acted in the way that the experimenter suggested (demand characteristics), particularly as they were being paid.

However Milgram (1974) reported that 75% of participants strongly believed that they were giving real shocks, 22.6% had some doubt, and 2.4% thought the shocks were not real. What does this suggest about the internal validity of this study?

Although it was in a lab, how real was the participant’s behaviour?

Ecological (external) Validity : How well can the results of this study be generalised to the real world? Does this experiment reflect real life? Does it matter if it doesn’t? Is obedience in life as overt as this? Milgram’s experiment took around an hour or so. Could this affect the validity of the results?

Sampling: Could the fact that the participants had been chosen through volunteer sampling bias the sample and affect the results? Is there anything else about the sample that may have been biased? In later studies, Milgram found the same rate of obedience in females as males, although women reported more stress.

Ethical issues: Baumrind (1964) claimed that Milgram caused psychological damage to his participants that was unjustified. How much do you agree with this? What other ethical issues does this study raise? Does the knowledge gained by this research outweigh the costs?

5. CRITICALLY ASSESS WITH REFERENCE TO ALTERNATIVE EVIDENCE

Sheridan and King (1972)They found similar levels of obedience to Milgram’s study by using real shocks. A small puppy was used as the victim to whom real electric shocks were administered. Even though the puppy was in the same room, and could be seen yelping as the shocks were administered, 75% of participants administered the highest shocks. Women obeyed more than the men.

With reference to the objection made by Orne and Horne (1972) above, what does this

evidence suggest?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Burger (2009)Replicated Milgram’s study, and found that 70% of participants are willing to carry on administering shocks beyond 150V (when the experiment was stopped).

Hoffling et al (1966)He investigated obedience in a hospital. Nurses were telephoned by a “Dr Smith” and asked to give 20mg of a fictional drug called Astrogen to a patient. This order contravened hospital regulations as nurses were not supposed to take orders over the phone, nor from an unknown doctor. Also, the dosage was twice that of what was advised on the bottle. 21 out of 22 (95%) of nurses carried out the order. When asked afterwards why they had obeyed, they said in their defence that it is a nurses job to obey a doctor.

A criticism of Milgram’s study was that it was artificial, and may not have ecological validity.

What do the results of this experiment suggest?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Rank and Jacobson (1977)Replicated the Hoffling study, but this time used the real drug Valium, and the nurses were allowed to consult with their peers. This time 16 out of 18 (89%) refused to obey.

With reference to Milgram’s conclusions, how can we explain this result?

_________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Milgram (1974)He conducted 18 variations on the original study, manipulating variables to observe the effect on obedience.

Experimenter absent: the experimenter left the room, giving instructions over the phone. Obedience dropped to 21%

Presence of allies: two other ‘teachers’ in the room (actually confederates of the study) who disobeyed the experimenter. Obedience dropped to 10%.

Proximity: The learner was in the same room as the teacher. Obedience dropped to 40%

What can you conclude from this evidence?

_________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Real life eventsIn 1942, Major Wilhelm Trapp, commander of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 in Poland received orders to carry out a mass killing of Jews in a small town. Trapp offered to assign men to other duties if they felt uneasy about the killing. Trapp was not present during the killing, the battalion were face to face with their victims, and some in the battalion disobeyed. However, most obeyed the orders.

This was a real life case of obedience. What factors should have reduced the obedience?

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Mandel (1998) therefore has argued that in real life, obedience is different than in experiments. He argued that Milgram’s experiment merely provided an obedience alibi.

Use three colours to highlight research that supports, contradicts, or develops Milgram’s research.

Milgram’s conclusions: match to the sentence starts

…between meeting the demands of the experimenter and the learner

…not to harm someone, and to obey orders form a legitimate authority

… know that the victim would remain silent for the rest of the experiment

…whereas the scientific gains were important

…gave the experimenter perceived authority

…and had a worthy purpose so must be followed

…and there were no other people around to discuss the situation with

….as the participant was being paid for his time

…had voluntarily consented to take part

…were not equally pressing and legitimate

…because he felt under obligation to the experimenter as he had volunteered to take part

…therefore the learner can not really complain

…the participants assumed that the learner was willing to continue with the experiment