Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Milgram (Procedure (BEFORE STUDY:14 Yale psychology students estimated…
Milgram
Procedure
BEFORE STUDY:14 Yale psychology students estimated that 0-3% (mean 1.2%) of participants who would administer the highest level of shock (450 volts).
The study took place in a laboratory at Yale University so conditions could be controlled e.g. who was teacher/learner, the learner's recorded (therefore standardised) responses, the experimenters 'prods'
The 40 participants were always given the role of teacher (through fixed lottery) and saw the learner (a confederate) strapped into a chair with (non active) electrodes attached to his arms. The participant (teacher) then heard the experimenter tell the learner 'although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage'. To further enhance the authenticity of the generator the participant (teacher) was given a sample shock of 45 volts. The learner never actually received any electric shocks.
The 'teacher' then sat in front of the electric shock generator in an adjacent room. He had to conduct a paired work test on the leaner 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.
To improve the authenticity of the phoney shock generator, written labels were also clearly indicated from 'slight shock' to danger:severe shock' and finally 'XXX'. The phoney generator also had buzzers, flashing lights and moving dials.
The role of the experimenter was played by a 31 year old Biology teacher, who introduced himself as Jack Williams. He wore a technician's coat and appeared stern and emotionless throughout the experiment. The victim was played by Mr Wallace, a 47 year old accountant, trained for the role, which most observers found mild-mannered and likeable.
The 'learner' produced (via tape recording) a set of predetermined responses, giving approximately 3 wrong answers to every correct one. Each incorrect answer received a shock of increasing voltage. No vocal responses or other signs of protest were heard from the learner until the shock level reached 300v. Then the learner pounded on the wall. The answers then stopped. The participant was told to treat an absence of responses an an incorrect response and given another shock. The pounding on the wall was repeated after the 315v shock but subsequently the learner was not heard from again.
If the 'teacher' turned to the experimenter for advice on whether to proceed, the experimenter responded with a series of standardised prods e.g. "Please continue/ Please go on". The study finished when either the teacher refused to continue (was disobedient) or reached 450 volts (was obedient). The participant was then fully debriefed.
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.
Key findings
-
-
So, 26 participants (65%) were obedient and 14 participants (35%) were disobedient
Many participants showed signs of extreme stress whilst administering the shocks e.g. sweating, trembling, stuttering, and 14 participants showed signs of nervous laughter. Full blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed in 3 participants.
On completion of the test many obedient participants heaved signs of relief, mopped their brows, or nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some shook their head, apparently in regret; some remained calm throughout
-
Sample
Self-selecting sample (volunteer). Participants 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
40 male participants aged between 20-50 years, from the New Haven area (USA)
-
There was a wide range of occupations in the sample (e.g. postal clerks, high-school teachers, salesmen, engineers and labourers).
Conclusions
-
People will obey others whom they consider legitimate authority figures even if what they are asked to do goes against their moral beliefs, such as hurting another person.
He also concluded that there were extreme signs of tension shown by the participants and they were obviously distressed, but they continued to administer electric shocks.
People obey because of certain situations features lead them to suspend their sense of autonomy and become an agent of an authority figure. This challenges the 'germans are different' hypothesis, as the study shows that obedience is not a dispositional tendency (due to personality), but depends on the situation an individual is put in.
Research method
Milligram refers to this study as a laboratory experiment. However, it is generally considered a controlled observation as there was no independent variable.
Dependant variable is the degree of obedience displayed by the participant (the voltage administered by the participants).
-Went up to 450v=obedient
-Stopped before 450v=disobedient
Aim
To investigate the process of obedience by testing how far for an individual will go in obeying an authority figure, even when the command breaches the moral code that an individual should not hurt another person against his will