Transcript Milgram`s Obedience Experiment (1963)

Milgram's Obedience
Experiment (1963)
Soleil Mcghee
Dita Henderson
Eleanor Thomas
Theory
Wanted to see if Germans, at the time of the
Second World War, were more obedient and
conformed to authorities figures in
comparison to other ethnical races, ie. if the
German race had a trait which allowed them
to support the Nazi Holocaust more so than
another race would have.
Hypothesis
People respond to and obey
authority figures even if it is
against their own moral beliefs.
The Research Design
How the research and data were collected and gathered
• Took place in a Yale University call room but soon moved to
downtown Bridgeport (variation 10)
• Taking place from 1963 up to about 1974
• A flier promoting a “Study of Memory” promised a four dollar pay
and 50 cents for a bus ride if one volunteered an hour of their
time
o The experiment would get a different variety of people and not
a generic mould.
• Independent variable- the direct link to the voltage change from
them participant and the prodding from the examiner to the
participant.
• Dependent variable- the degree of to which the participant
obeyed the authoritative figure.
The Research Design
•
This experiment required a number of props such as
o Lab coat- to show authoritative power
o Shock generator- which had a number of switches that determined the
voltage given to the “learner”
o Confidant- the experiment also required a confidant because the
“teacher” (Mr Wallace) was part of the experimental team and only
posed as a participant.
• Debriefing: told participants the truth about the real hypothesis and how
the entire experiment was scripted and pre-planned after experiment took
place
• After a year the experimenter did a follow up to check for any
psychological damage and 84% of participants said that they were glad to
have taken part in this experiment.
The Procedure
1. Participants arrived and were greeted by a man named Jake Williams, who was wearing
a grey lab coat. (This was to show the participants that he was an authoritative figure)
2. Everything that happened after this point was pre-planned, staged, and scripted. (Except
to the degree to which the participants obeyed the experimenter’s instructions.)
3. The participants were told that they were taking part in an experiment that was about the
effects of punishment on learning.
4. Mr. Wallace, one of the experimenters, posed as a volunteer participant and joined in
with the others who were taking part.
5. From there they were told that one participant would be a teacher and one would be the
learner. The roles where determined by picking names from a hat (although both slips of
paper were labeled “Teachers”) Mr. Wallace picked a name first and clearly read out
“learner” so the actual volunteer was guaranteed to be the “teacher.”
The Procedure
6.The teacher was given a 45-volt shock to convince him it was a true experiment, and told
that the shocks might be painful but do not cause permanent tissue damage. (This was the
only real shock given though out the whole experiment.)
7. It was said that no answer to a question is counted as incorrect.
8. Mr. Wallace then was strapped with electrodes (the shock generator)
9. The shock generator was clearly marked with 15 different voltages that were also clearly
marked with a verbal description of the effect. IE.) Volt-45 Dangerously intense.
10. There were scripted phrases from the experimenter to encourage the learner at set
points (eg. please go on, you have no other choice - you must go on)
Procedure
11. The experimenter was to read out a series of words, which were then followed by 5
words of which one was said earlier. The learners had a panel of 4 switches, from which he
could answer and depending on if was right or wrong a light would go off on the generator.
12. Each time the leaner made a mistake the teacher would punish him with a shock 15volts higher.
13. After the experiment has taken place they debrief the “Teacher” volunteer and tell them
the experiment was all preplanned and scripted, and describe what they were really
looking for. After a year the examiners’ do a follow up of the participants to see if there is
any lasting psychological damage
The Variations
14. There were different variations to this experiment.
o
Variation 1- the teacher and leaner would be placed in different room and the
only interactions between the two would come from the experimenter, the
learner would pound on the wall at 300V, and at 315 V he would no longer
answer the experimenter's questions
o
Variation 2 - the teacher's room is equipped with a (pre-recorded) sound
system which allows voice feedback, at 75, 90, and 105 V the learner grunts,
at 120V the learner says it has started getting painful, at 135V he gives out
pained groans, at 150V he starts asking to be let go, at 180V the learner says
he can't stand the pain, at 270V he lets out an agonized scream, at 300V he
says he wil no longer provide answers, at 315 Volts he screams that he is no
longer participating, and at 330V there is silence
o
Variation 3 - the learner was moved into the same room as the teacher, within
about 1.5 feet of him
Variations
o
Variation 4 - the teacher had to force the learner's hand down onto the
shock plate for every wrong answer
o
Variation 7 - the instructions from the experimenter were given by
phone
o
Variation 10 - the experiment was moved from Yale University to a
downtown office
o
Variation 17 - two other teachers were present (scripted to
leave at 150V and 210V)
o
Variation 18 - the teacher was only required to read the
words, not press the button on the shock generator
The Results
VARIATION RESULTS
what % of participants went
until 450 Volts
Variation 1- 65% 450 V
Variation 2- 62.5% 450 V
Variation 3 - 40% 450V
Variation 4 - 30% 450V
Variation 7 - 20.5% 450V
Variation 10 - 47.5% 450 V
Variation 17 - 10% 450V
Variation 18 - 92.5% 450V
“...sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bite their lips and dig their nails into
their flesh. Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed for three
subjects.” (Milgram, 1974)
had predictions from 14 psychology students
•
guessed few would break off early on,
most
would stop somewhere in the middle, few
would continue on to 450 V
had predictions from 40 psychiatrists
•
less than one percent would go to the highest
voltage
expectations proven wrong
The Results
HOW?
if personal responsibility is taken away
(experimenter says they’re responsible) then it’s
easier for the people
they've been told it will hurt but won’t cause
permanent tissue damage, so they feel better
about it...
“A substantial proportion of people do what they
are told to do irrespective of the content of the act
and without limitations of conscience, so long as
they perceive that the command comes from a
legitimate authority” (Milgram 1974)
Ecological Validity
The main idea of this experiment was to explore the obedience in
humans in order to understand better why people listened to the
Nazi orders during WWII.
Because of this, the experiment was aimed to have the most
ecological validity it could, including being a natural experiment in an
office.
The people were "deceived" and not told what was the real goal of
the experiment, so they would reach as they would in a normal
situation with an authoritative figure.
The only aspect of this experiment that wouldn't hold much
ecological validity would be the pressing of the button to hurt the
learner, as in a real-life situation there would be a wider range of
opportunities to hurt someone.
Strengths
Evaluation
Variations:
placement of people (same room, different room, touching the
person)
sound feedback
instructions not given in person - by the phone
moved from Yale University to a downtown office
two other teachers were present
only required to read words, no press button on shock
generator
had women at one variation
debriefing, check up for damage
scripted phrases to continue
scripted responses from learner
convinced teacher it’s a legitimate experiment with 45V
sample shock
experimenter always wore grey lab coat - authority
Weaknesses
no control group originally
only used women in one experiment
a less dramatic situation might be
perceived as less applicable to the real
world
ethical standards evolve, so it probably
wouldn’t be allowed today
deception can be used to an extent but
debriefing is needed
Evaluation
Limits
is it a comprehensive test of the us population if it is only a cross-section of new haven?
if there was no graduation of demands from an ad for a study of learning and memory to a
potentially lethal shock - people would respond differently
socialization - obedience is conditioned from a young age by parents and teachers
those who went up to 450V could say
the learner can be held responsible for what is happening to them - less responsibility from
teacher
teachers can have authoritarian characters
teachers can be less advanced in moral development
if people in experiment aren’t especially sadistic or obedient then it depends on the situation
rather than the person
Ethical Issues
* Insensitive to suffering of subjects
* Deception is used : lacks informed consent, participants don’t
know what is actually happening in the experiment.
* Baumrind argued that the rights and feeling of participants had
been abused as extreme stress was suffered by participants and
their psychological wellbeing was not looked after
* Yale had no participation but was named on the fliers advertising
the experiment, and therefore ensued fake assuredness
Could it be carried out today?
* Probably would not be approved today: “perceived benefits
of research cannot be used to justify causing harm to research
subjects”
* It’s frowned upon not because people actually hurt people,
but that they were willing to go to 450volts and willing to
potentially kill someone, it is more emotional criticism about
the implications rather than ethics.
Why is this a classic study?
This has become a classic study because it demonstrates
the dangers and limitations of obedience.
It also shows that obedience is mostly influenced by the
social setting and the situation rather than the personality of
the individual.
Sources
Richard Gross. Psychology The
Science of Mind and Behaviour.
London: Hodder and Stoughton
Educational, 2001.