Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Milgram (1963) - Obedience - Coggle Diagram
Milgram (1963) - Obedience
Aim
- To investigate how obedient people can be to orders from an authority figure that would result in the harm of someone else.
Background
Milgram was naturally interested in the concept of
destructive obedience
due to the events in Nazi Germany, where the obedience of many was exhibited, causing the harm of many Jews.
Many Nazi soldiers, as well as citizens, were tried as 'War Criminals', however, they argued that they were
just following orders
.
Dispositional argument
: German soldiers possessed some defective personal traits which made such extreme levels of obedience possible
Situational argument
: Milgram suggested that people who were in similar situations would harm or even kill human beings under the orders of an authority figure
Method
The study is best described as a
controlled observation
.
Levels of
obedience were measured
. This was
operationalised as the maximum voltage
given in response to the orders
Sample
A newspaper article was used to recruit
40 men
between ages 20 and 50
years old. This means that it was a
volunteer sample
.
It composed of men who lived in the
New Haven area of the United States
.
The
men came from a range of different backgrounds and professions
; from 'unskilled workers' to white collar workers as well as professionals.
Procedure
Each participant was promised $4.50 for taking part in the study
The procedure
took place in a modern library at Yale University
. The location was chosen in order
to make the procedure seem legitimate - to avoid demand characteristics
.
The
participants were introduced to another man
who they believed was another participant, but was in fact a
confederate
who worked for Milgram.
The men were told that they were either going to be a
' teacher or a learner'
, based on what piece of paper they would draw from a hat, but the pieces were fixed such that. the real
participants were always allocated the role of a teacher
.
Next, the participant was taken to another room, where the
stooge was strapped to what looked like an electric chair
.
The participant was given control of a shock generator
which had ascending levels from "moderate shock" to "XXX"
The
participant was told that the shocks were painful but not dangerous
. They were seated against the wall so that
they could hear but not see the stooge
.
The stooge did not feel shocked
at any point in the procedure but the
participants were made to believe that they were able to injure the 'learner'
.
The
same experimenter was used for every participant
. He was a 31-year-old male who
wore a technician's coat and had a stern manner
througout.
The participant was told to give the 'learner' a memory task in which
they had to shock the 'learner' whenever they state the wrong answer
. The
participant was instructed to raise the voltage by 15V after each error
. The stooge was given a planned set of answers and mistakes.
1 more item...
Results
Most participants
believed that all aspects of the situation were real
, including the concept that they were physically harming the 'learner'.
The mean estimate of the pain of the 450V shock was 13.42 out of a maximum of 14. This means that
participants were fully aware that they were causing serious pain
.
Participants showed extremely
high levels of destructive obedience
.
All participants gave
at least 300V and 65% gave the maximum of 450V
.
The
mean voltage
given by participants was 368V
The
qualitative data
collected in this study revealed that the
participants showed signs of tension during the procedure
.
Observers reported
signs of nervousness in participants
, which
increased as they gave more powerful electric shocks
.
The participants were also frequently observed to be sweating, shaking and groaning, with 14/40 men showing signs of nervous laughter or smiling.
One participant
could not complete the experiment
because
he went into a violent seizure
, presumably because of the
high levels of stress
he was experiencing.
The
verbal prods
given by the experimenter were
generally successful in convincing the participants to continue
, despite of their verbal protests.