Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Milgram (1963) 'Behavioural Study of Obedience' - Coggle Diagram
Milgram (1963) 'Behavioural Study of Obedience'
Methodology
Participants
Advertisement paced in a New Haven Newspaper
From those who responded 40 males between 20 & 50 yrs
The advertisement led the pps to believe that they would be taking part in research about memory & learning
The men in the sample had a range of jobs from postal clerks to engineers & they varied in educational level from one who had not passed primary to one with a doctorate
Each was paid $4.50 for their participation
Told they would receive this when they showed up to the lab even if they did not continue to remain in the study
Study was conducted in a laboratory environment so that the conditions could be well controlled
Not an experiment
Procedure
The study took place in a lab at Yale University.
When pps arrived they were greeted by the experimenter, a 31-year-old man dressed in a grey technician's coat. Another 'participant' was at the lab, a mild-mannered and likeable 47-year-old accountant, Mr Wallace. Both of the men were accomplices of Milgram (called confederates).
The participants drew slips of paper to decide which of them would play the role of teacher or learner. The selection was rigged - the naïve participant was always assigned to the teacher and the accomplice was always assigned the learner.
Both learner and teacher were then taken to the experiment room where the learner was strapped into an 'electric chair' to prevent movement. An electrode was placed on the learner's wrist, linked to a shock generator in the adjoining room.
The shock machine
The teacher was taken to the adjoining room and seated in front of the shock generator. This large machine had 30 switches on it, each showing an incremental rise in voltage starting at 15 volts and going up to 450 volts. For every four switches, there were shock' labels, starting at 'slight shock'at 15 volts to intense shock'at 255 volts and finally XXX' at 450 volts, a potentially fatal shock. The experimenter gave the teacher a sample shock to demonstrate that the machine was real.
The learning task
Once the study began, the teacher was told to administer a shock when the learner gave a wrong answer, and to escalate to a higher level of shock each time, announcing the shock level each time. The learner was told to make no comment or protest until the shock level of 300 volts was reached. At this point he should pound on the wall but thereafter make no further comment.
Feedback from experimenter
The experimenter was trained to give a sequence of four standard 'prods' if the teacher hesitated about delivering the shock or asked for guidance: 'Please continue; 'The experiment requires that you continue; It is absolutely essential that you continue; "You have no other choice, you must go on. There were also special prods such as: Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so go on.
Dehoax
After the research was completed, the teacher was thoroughly 'dehoaxed' (debriefed) & the experimenter reunited the teacher & learner
They were then interviewed about their experience in this study
Findings
Quantitative Data
Prior to the study Milgram surveyed 14 yale psychology students -> 0-3% of the pps would administer 450 volts
The findings from the actual study showed this was a wild underestimate -> large majority continued to the highest level -> at 300v, 5 of the pps refused to continue this was the point at which the learner made the only protest (all pps continued to this point)
24/60 pps administered the full 450v -> 35& of pps defied experimenters authority
Qualitative Data
Many subjects showed nervousness & a large no. showed extreme tension
14 pps displayed 'nervous laughter & smiling' -> indicated they were acting against their own values in punishing the leaner
3 pps had seizures -> 1 had a violent convulsion that the research had to be stopped
Conclusions
It is the circumstances in which the pps found themselves that amalgamated to create a situation in which it proved difficult to disobey
Suggested 13 elements in this situation had contributed to these levels of obedience e.g.:
Location of study at the prestigious Uni provided authority
pps assumed the experimenter knew what he was doing & had a worthy purpose, sp should be followed
pps did not wish to disrupt the study so under obligation they felt they should continue due to voluntary consent
-pps assumed discomfort caused was minimal & temporary & scientific gains were important
Conflict was between 2 deeply ingrained tendencies - not to harm someone, and to obey those whom perceive to be legitimate authorities
Evaluation
Internal Validity
Orne & Holland (1969) claim the research lacks internal validity as the pps did not believe the electric shocks were real
It does not make sense that someone in a learning experiment would receive a fatal shock therefore pps behaved as they were expected to due to the demand characteristics
Further supported in an investigation by Gina Perry (2012)
Read through Milgram's archive of what happened in the study & found the pps knew they weren't hurting anyone
In a follow up questionnaire many pps knew they were suspicious as e.g. the experimenter remained calm
Milgram (1974) reported 75% of pps strongly believed they were giving electric shocks
Ethical Issues
Baumrind (1964) claimed Milgram caused psychological damage to his pps that could not be justified
Milgram defended this by:
1- He did not know such high levels of stress would be caused
2- He did consider ending when he observed the behaviour but there was no indication of injurious effects
3- 84% of pps did say afterwards they were glad to have participated
5- The potential damage to pps should be weighed out against the importance of the findings
Perry (2012) argued Milgram failed in his duty to care for pps as some waited up to a year before they were debriefed
External Validity
Jacobsen & Rank (1975):
same set up as Hofling (did an experiment of obedience of nurses in a Hospital) but the drug used was valium and the nurses could consult with others
Only 2/18 of obeyed (11%)
Challenged findings of Milgram that people are obedient, thhis weakened the external validity
Controlled some but not all of the confounding variables -> same experimenter, room, instructions
Enabled him to keep his aim & measure his intended outcome
Ecological Validity
Low ecological validity as people do not generally electrocute others
Population Validity
High in terms of New Haven but low in terms of world pop.
Reliability
Strong - research method was controlled observation due to the ability to standardise everything within the experiment
Strong - everything was consistently standardised throughout the procedure as each pps had the same experience, scripts and recordings of learners screams
Strong - Milgram repeated this proccedure many times and found similar levels of obedience ->> BBC Horizon replicated & found 75% obedience levels, suggesting Milgram's procedure is high in external validity
Sampling
Volunteer sample obtained via an article in the local newspaper - no researcher bias
40 is a reasonable sample size
The sapling frame: variety of ages, locations, backgrounds & professions/employment
Self-selected could mean that it is only a certain type of personality
Data
Qualitative: observations and discussions in debrief all give detail & depth
Quantitative: data enables easy analysis & comparisons. Generalisations then possible
Strong as qual & quan is represented