Obedience

Milgram’s Research

IT’S NOT AN EXPERIMENT! IT IS A CONTROLLED OBSERVATION!

Background:

Obedience involves (a) being ordered or instructed to do something, (b) being influenced by an authority figure of superior status, (c) the maintenance of social power and status of the authority figure in a hierarchical society.
From 1933-45, millions of innocent people were systematically slaughtered on command. Such inhumane actions may have originated in the mind of one person, but they could only have been carried out on such a massive scale because large numbers of people obeyed. Germans are different hypothesis, implied that obedience was a dispositional i.e. a unique characteristic to the German culture.
When given extreme commands by legitimate authority figures, subordinates adopt an agentic state where they become the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes.

Research Method:

Although Milgram refers to this study as an experiment, it is generally considered a controlled observation as there was, in fact, no independent variable.

Sample:

40 male participants aged between 20 and 50 years, from the New Haven area were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. There was a wide range of occupations in the sample. Participants were paid $4.50 for simply presenting themselves at the laboratory.
The experimenter was played by a biology teacher and the victim (confederate) was an accountant called Mr Wallace.

Procedure:

The study took place in a laboratory at Yale University where participants were told that the study was about how punishment effected learning.
Participant introduced to ‘Mr. Wallace’ (a harmless looking accountant in his 50’s. Mr Wallace was in fact a stooge or confederate, this means that he is in on the study and is pretending to be a participant.
Mr Wallace and the participant drew a piece of paper to see who will be teacher and learner. Mr Wallace always becomes ‘learner’ so will receive the shocks. The real participant is always the teacher so will be delivering the shocks. Mr. Wallace then goes next door into a separate room.
All 40 participants (teachers) see the learner (a confederate) strapped into a chair with (non-active) electrodes attached to his arms. They were given a trial shock of 45 volts to simulate genuineness.
The ‘teacher’ then sat in front of an electric shock generator in an adjacent room. He had to conduct a paired word test on the learner and give him an electric shock of increasing intensity for every wrong answer. The machine had 30 switches ranging from 15-450 volts, in 15 volt increments.
The ‘learner’ produced (via a tape recording) a set of predetermined responses, giving approximately 3 wrong answers to every correct one. At various voltage points, the recording played complaints from the learner. This first mild compliant was at 75 volts. At 300 volts he pounded on the wall and thereafter made no further replies. At 315 volts the learner pounded on the wall again and then fell silent.
If the ‘teacher’ turned to the experimenter for advice on whether to proceed, the experimenter responded with a series of standardised prods eg’ “Please continue / Please go on.”. If the participant asked if the learner was in pain he would respond ‘Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage’
Data was gathered through observations made by both the experimenter who was in the same room as the participant and others who observed the process through one-way mirrors. Most sessions were recorded on magnetic tape, occasional photographs were taken through the one-way mirrors and notes were made on unusual behaviours.
The study finished when either the ‘teacher’ refused to continue (was disobedient) or reached 450 volts (was obedient).
The participant was then fully debriefed. They were reunited with an ALIVE Mr Wallace and were assured that no shocks had been given. They were reassured that their behaviour was normal and were given a full report of the results. Shortly after, they were all sent a questionnaire where 92% completed it. Of these: 84% were glad that they’d taken part. 74% claimed that they’d learned something of ‘personal importance.’ Only 2% were sorry or very sorry that they’d taken part.

Results:

Quantitative data: All participants (40/40) / 100% continued to 300 volts.
26/40 / 65% of participants continued to the full 450 volts. Therefore 26 were classed as obedient and 14 were classed as disobedient because they walked out and refused to deliver any more shocks.
Qualitative data: Many participants showed signs of extreme stress whilst administering the shocks e.g. sweating, trembling, stuttering, laughing nervously. Three participants even had full blown uncontrollable seizures.
Milgram offered 13 possible explanations for the high levels of obedience shown by participants e.g. The fact that the study was carried out in the prestigious university of Yale influenced participants as to the worthiness of the study and the competence of the researcher; the participants were told the shocks were not harmful; the situation was completely new for the participant so he had no past experience to guide his behaviour.

Conclusions:

Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people due to being in agentic state. This means that individuals feel that they are acting as an agent, on behalf of the authority figure. Therefore they shift the responsibility of their actions back to the authority figure. This makes them more likely to obey as they wouldn’t feel guilty for something in which they believe is not their fault.
People obey because certain situational features lead them to suspend their sense of autonomy and become an agent of an authority figure. Here are the situational factors that Milgram believed to influence obedience:

Here is a little memory strategy – PRANKED that outlines that main situational factors:

Paid $4.50
Responsibility shift
Authority figure in uniform
Not in sight
Keep going
Environment – University
Demo shock

Evaluation of Milgram’s Research

Quantitative & Qualitative data: Point: A strength of Milgram’s study was the use of both quantitative and qualitative data which helped to provide a better understanding of the findings. Evidence: Milgram gathered quantitative data by finding out the number of participants that obeyed – 26 and disobeyed – 14. He also collect qualitative data by noting down comments and behavioural responses made by participants throughout the study and he also sent out a follow up questionnaire. Explain: This is a strength because it means that Milgram can make more valid conclusions about obedience. Solely looking at voltage we may infer that people are uncaring. But by also looking at qualitative behaviour we can conclude that not only do people obey, but they found the experience highly stressful.
Point: The research may lack internal validity Evidence and Explain: It could be argued that participants volunteering to take part in psychological studies must realise that the real purpose of the study is going to be disguised. In this case why would the experimenter stand by and let poor old Mr Wallace cry out in pain without stepping in. Consequently, Milgram cannot be sure that the participants were obedient due to the situational variables such as uniform and proximity, or because participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
Challenge: Furthermore, highly controlled conditions within a lab experiment lack ecological validity. This is a weakness because it takes a reductionist approach by studying the impact of one variable at a time in isolation. This is likely to be unrealistic in comparison to real life where multiple factors will interact and influence obedience.
Reliability: Point: Milgram’s study can be argued to have good reliability. Evidence: Milgram used the same word pair task, the same recording of the learner, and the experimenter even had standardised responses to say to the teacher if they asked him questions. Explain: This shows good reliability because his measure was highly standardised and consistent, as the participants experienced the task and authority figure in the same way. Consequence: Due to this standardization, Milgram’s study has been replicated many times and found very similar obedience levels including a study that was carried out in 2009.
Ecological (or external) Validity: Point: Milgram’s study can be argued to have some ecologically valid. Evidence & Explain: Although it was set in a lab setting, the person in the white lab coat was a realistic authority figure in relation to the setting (experimenter), it was deliberately portrayed as a psychological study e.g. advertisement in a newspaper asking for volunteers for a study on the effects of punishment and learning, and it was held at Yale university. Consequently, This is a strength because it means that findings of obedience can be better generalised to real life situations where individuals experience orders from authority figures.
Ethics: It is also worth mentioning that Milgram did not breach ethical guidelines, since they did not exist at the time! In fact it was Milgram’s study that was largely responsible for the introduction of such codes of conduct. Milgram put forward lots of arguments to justify the harm caused by his study. For example:

He explained that the results were unexpected because even when he asked 14 other professionals for their opinion, they too believed that only 3% would obey to 450 volts.
Milgram also argued that they did have the right to withdraw, in fact, 14 participants refused to continue and left the room.
Milgram refers to deception as ‘technical illusions.’ Without them the experiment would have been meaningless because participants would have been aware that the learner was not being shocked, so would have stopped straight away!
Participants were debriefed at the end of the study and were reassured about their behaviour.
One year later, 40 of the participants were interviewed by a psychiatrist who concluded that none of them had suffered long term harm.
In 1965 Milgram was awarded the prize for ‘Contribution to Psychological Research’ by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This is because it was Milgram’s study that highlighted the importance of ethics!

Ethics: Nonetheless, Milgram’s study was unethical. The right to withdraw from the experiment was not made clear to participants. Use of phrases such as ‘You have no choice, you must go on,’ would suggest participants did not have a choice. The experiment should have been stopped. Although participants gave their consent to take part, this was not informed since they did not know the real purpose of the study or what it would entail. Finally, participants experienced psychological harm as the task was stressful. The fact that some individuals had seizures highlight the great distress the study caused.
Population Validity: Milgram’s research lacked population validity. Milgram used an androcentric sample of 40 male volunteers, which means we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, in particular females, and cannot conclude if female participants would respond in a similar way.

Obedience: Situational Factors/Variables

Following Milgram’s original research, numerous variations were carried out to examine how different variables affect obedience.

Proximity

In Milgram’s original research the teacher and the learner were in separate rooms. In order to test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner where seated in the same room. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 40%. Here obedience levels fell, as the teacher was able to experience the learner’s pain more directly. In another variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand directly onto the shock plate. In this more extreme variation, the percentage dropped even further, to 30%. In these two variations, the closer the proximity of the teacher and learner, the lower the level of obedience.

The proximity of the authority figure also affects the level of obedience. In one variation, after the experimenter had given the initial instructions they left the room. All subsequent instructions were provided over the phone. In this variation participants were more likely to defy the experimenter and only 21% of the participants administers the full 450 volts.

Location

Milgram’s conducted his original research in a laboratory of Yale University. In order to test the power of the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The experiment was no longer associated with Yale University and was carried out by the Research Association of Bridgeport. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from 65% to 47.5%. This highlights the impact of location on obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a reduction in the level of obedience.

Uniform

In most of Milgram’s variations the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor. Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another confederate. In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the leaner made a mistake. The percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power of uniform.

Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used three male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard; and one dressed in ordinary clothes. The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’.

On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%. These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power.

Evaluation of Situational Variables

You can use evaluation points about Milgram’s study to question or further support the credibility of his situational variable theory. If you do this, focus validity points! Please see above in the research evaluation.
Point: There is research to support the theory that situational variables effect obedience. Evidence: Bickman carried out a field experiment where he had 3 confederates, one dressed as milk man, one in a jacket and tie, and the other in a security guards uniform. The confederates asked passers by to pick up litter. People were twice as likely to obey the security guard in comparison to the guy in the jacket and tie Explain: This is a strength because it helps to build confidence in Milgram’s theory of situational factors in a real life setting. Consequence: Consequently, because the research used to support the effect of situational variables has good ecological validity, this means that we can be more confident that the theory generalises to obedience in an everyday situation.
Point: There is further research to support situational variables as an explanation of obedience. Evidence: Sheridan and King conducted a similar study to Milgram where real shocks were given to a puppy, however, this time the participants could see the shock being delivered to the puppy. They found that 54% of male and 100% of female student participants delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. Explain: This supports the situational variable of uniform and location, as it showed that when individuals are placed in an a official environment and an authority figure in uniform, participants will carry out orders. Challenge: However, it could be argued that is goes against Milgram’s theory of proximity. Milgram believed that the closer the proximity of the victim, the less likely you were to obey. However, this was not the case in this study. Therefore, proximity may be dependent on the victim, in this case it was an animal and not a human.
Point: By understanding how situational variables impact obedience, practical applications can be put in place. Evidence: Milgram found that uniform increased the likelihood that an individual would obey in comparison to someone in causal clothing. Explain: This has been proven to be useful for authority figures such as police, doctors and teachers, as by wearing a uniform it encourages individuals to obey orders. Consequence: Consequently, Milgram’s situational factors can help to maintain order in society by showing how certain factors can increase this. Challenge: Furthermore, authority figures such as doctors and police officers could be educated about the impact of these situational variables such as uniform through their training. This allows authority figures to be more mindful of the orders they give and how they give them in order to avoid destructive obedience that was shown in the Milgram study.
Alternative explanation: Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality could explain why people obeyed. Elms and Milgram (1966) wanted to see if the obedient participants in Milgram’s research were more likely to display authoritarian personality traits, in comparison to disobedient participants. Their sample consisted of 20 obedient participants, who administered the full 450 volts and 20 disobedient participants, who refused to continue. Each participant completed several personality questionnaires, including Adorno’s F scale, to measure their level of authoritarian personality. Elms and Milgram found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F scale, in comparison to disobedient participants, Therefore finding a positive correlation between high obedience and high score on F scale. This means that the situational factors might not be the only influence on obedience. In addition, not all participants went up to 450 volts in the original study. There were in the same situation, yet they disobeyed. This means that the situational explanation cannot explain all cases of obedience.
Research to support: Burger (2008) Replicated Milgram’s study and found almost identical obedience levels to those found in the Milgram study. This supports that idea that Milgram’s findings still apply as much today, as they did in the early 1960’s. This further supports the credibility of the situational explanation, because the same situation was created, and had the same impact on obedience. If a theory is proven on multiple occasions, this evidences that there must be some truth to it. See a link to an article below about the changes he made to get past the ethics board. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/12/replicating-milgram#:~:text=Jerry%20M.,obedience%20between%20men%20and%20women.