Transcript PowerPoint Presentation - The Milgram Obedience Study

The Milgram Obedience Studies
(1963 & 1965)
And “Milgram Revisited”
(Jerry Burger, 2009)
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Experimental Question
• Under what conditions will people carry
out the commands of an authority figure
and when will they refuse to obey?
– Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of
Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 371-378.
– Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of
obedience and disobedience to authority. Human
Relations, 18, 57-76
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram Study Setup
• Subjects were told that they were
participating in a study on the effect of
punishment on memory
• One “participant” in the study - the “learner”
(“Mr. Wallace” - real name Bob McDonough)
was a confederate of Milgram and one was
the true subject - the “teacher”
• The teacher was given a list of “paired
associates”
– Examples
• The “teacher” was told to shock the learner
when the learner gave an incorrect response
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram Study Setup
• The “learner” is hooked up to what appears to
be a shock generating machine with 30
switches labeled from “Slight Shock” to
“Danger: Severe Shock”
• The “teachers” were given a shock of 45 volts
to convince them that the shocks were real
• The “learner’s” response to the questions is
scripted (and played back on a tape recorder)
• At 150 volts the “learner” is heard asking that
the experiment stop
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram Study Setup
• Experimenter prompts: if the “teacher”
objected to continuing the experiment,
the experimenter’s script included the
following prompts:
– Please continue (or “Please go on”)
– The experiment requires that you continue
– It is absolutely essential that you continue
– You have no other choice, you must go on
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram Study Results
• Milgram: “There were powerful reactions of
tension and emotional strain in a substantial
proportion of the participants. Persons were
observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their
lips…”
• Remarks from two subjects:
– “Is he banging? Is he hurt out there? Well, I don’t want to
be responsible for anything that happens to him. No, I can’t
go on with it. I don’t know whether he’s all right or not. I
mean he may have a heart condition or something. I
wouldn’t feel right doing it….I don’t see any sense to this…I
just can’t see it
– “You want me to keep going? You hear him hollering? What
if something happens to him? I refuse to take
responsibility….
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram Study Results
• The experimental setup was described to 40
psychiatrists. They predicted that no one
would go beyond the 10th level (150 volts)
• Actual results: 65% of the subjects obeyed
the experimenter and shocked the “learner”
all the way to 450 volts (“Severe Shock”)
• No difference between men and women
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram: What You May Not Have Heard
• The “learner”, Mr. McDonough, died of a heart attack three years
after the studies ended. His neighbor, who unsuccessfully tried
to revive him using mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, had been a
“teacher” in the Milgram studies and had administered “shocks”
to Mr. McDonough just a few years earlier.
• One of the “teachers” (who had gone all the way to 450 volts)
was invited into a social psychology class to speak about his
experience in the study. The students (who had already learned
about the study) were nearly silent and stared at him with
accusing and disbelieving eyes. He reminded the class that you
never know what you might have done in that situation.
– “Beyond the Shock Machine” - Gina Perry
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
• Obedience to Authority
– “…our culture socializes individuals to obey
certain authority figures such as police
officers, teachers, and parents.”
– the perceived expertise of the
experimenter contributed to the
participants’ decision to follow the
instructions (Morelli, 1983)
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
•
A Need for Consistency: The well-demonstrated need to act and appear
in a consistent manner [think of cognitive dissonance studies] would have made it
difficult for a participant to refuse to press the 195-volt switch after just
pressing the 180-volt switch
– Interviewee in “Beyond the Shock Machine” says, “If you had to push
the 450 volt switch first, no one would do it”)
•
A Change in Self-Perception: agreeing to small requests, such as
pressing the low-voltage switches, can change the way people think
about themselves. Participants may have come to see themselves as the
kind of persons who follow the experimenter’s instructions
•
Escalation of Commitment - “well, I’m in it this far, might as well go all the
way…”
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
• Limited Sources of Information in a Novel
Situation
– The subjects had never been in a situation
anything like this before so they didn’t know how
to act.
• Gina Perry Interviewee, “This isn’t the way the world
operates”
– When we’re in novel situations we look to others
to figure out how we should act. The only other
person in the situation was the experimenter, and
he was acting like nothing was wrong.
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
• Responsibility had not been assigned to
anyone
– Most subjects asked who would be
responsible
– The experimenter stated that he would be
responsible
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram’s Additional Research Findings
• Conditions that decreased obedience:
– 1) Proximity of the “learner”:
• obedience decreased if the learner was in the
same room as the teacher
• Obedience decreased if the teacher had to
physically place the learner’s hand on a shock
plate
• Explanation: visual cues of someone else’s
pain triggers an empathic response
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram’s Additional Research Findings
• Conditions that decreased obedience:
– 2) Closeness of the authority figure
• Usually the experimenter sat a few feet away from the
teacher
• Obedience decreased when the experimenter…
– left the lab and gave the instructions by telephone
– was never seen and instructions were left on a tape
recorder
• Also found: when the experimenter was in another room
or when he was not present the “teachers” falsely
reported how much shock they were giving the “learner”
• Explanation: people will take a stronger stand when they
do not have to encounter an authority figure face-to-face
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram’s Additional Research Findings
• Conditions that decreased obedience
– 3) Prestige of the experimenter
• The initial studies took place at Yale University
with the experimenter dressed in a white lab
coat
• Obedience decreased when the study was
moved to Bridgeport, Connecticut and
conducted by the fictional “Research
Associates of Bridgeport”
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram Study Results
• Conditions that decreased obedience
– 4) disobedient models
• When other “teachers” (who were actually
confederates of the experimenter) sat with the
teacher and disobeyed the experimenter, 90%
of the real subjects disobeyed as well
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram’s Conclusions
• “The results, as seen and felt in the
laboratory, are to this author disturbing. They
raise the possibility that human nature, or
more specifically the kind of characters
produced in American democratic society,
cannot be counted on to insulate its citizens
from brutality and inhumane treatment at the
direction of malevolent authority. 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.”
– Stanley Milgram, Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to
Authority
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Milgram’s Conclusions
• If in this study an anonymous experimenter
could successfully command adults to
subdue a fifty-one year old man, and force on
him painful electric shocks against his
protests one can only wonder what
government, with its vastly greater authority
and prestige can command of its subjects.”
– Stanley Milgram, Some Conditions of Obedience and
Disobedience to Authority
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Replicating Milgram
• Jerry M. Burger, Santa Clara University: Replicating
Milgram: Will People Still Obey Today? American
Psychologist, January 2009.
• Burger replicates Milgram study, but with the
following safeguards:
– “The 150 volt solution”
– 2-step subject screening process
– Repeated reminders that subjects could withdraw at any
time
– Lower voltage “sample shock” (15 volts vs. 45 volts in Milgram’s study)
– Debrief occurred seconds after the study ended
– The “experimenter” was not an actor, but a clinical
psychologist
• Procedures were approved by the Santa Clara
University IRB.
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Safeguards
• “The 150 Volt Solution”
– After the “teacher” presses the 150 volt switch:
– The “learner” is heard demanding to be released from the study
– “Nearly every participant paused, and most turned to the
experimenter to indicate verbally or nonverbally their reluctance to
continue.” - Burger, 2009
– The data:
• 79% of the teachers who went past 150 volts continued all
the way to 450 volts
• “…the 150-volt switch is something of a point of no return.”
• Since this is so, then why not have a shock machine with
switches that go all the way to 450 volts, but stop the study if
and when a “teacher” presses the 150 volts switch (he or she
would probably have gone all the way to 450 anyway)
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Safeguards
• Two step subject screening process
1) Questionnaires:
A: Six questions (created by 2 clinical psychologists) were
asked of potential participants. Examples:
• “Have you ever been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder?
• Are you currently receiving psychotherapy?
• Are you currently taking any medications for emotional
difficulties such as anxiety or depression?
• Answer ‘yes’ to any question - you were excluded from the
study
B: Four scales: Those who made it through the above
questions were then given the following scales to fill out:
• Interpersonal Reactivity Index (extent to which you experience
empathy for others - might you be less likely to obey?)
• Beck Anxiety Inventory
• Desirability of Control Scale (extent to which you like to
“exercise control and to make their own decisions” - might
these people be less likely to obey?)
• Beck Depression Inventory
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Safeguards
• 2) Interviews:
– Questionnaires filled out in step 1 were
given to a licensed clinical psychologist,
who conducted an interview with the
subjects (average: 30 minutes)
– “Of the 123 people who participated in this
second screening process, 47 (38.2%)
were excluded from the study by the
clinical psychologist” - p. 6
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Experimental Conditions
• 1) Base Condition: pretty much the same experimental setup
as Milgram:
– Rigged drawing to determine “learner” and “teacher”
– Confederate gets strapped into a chair with electrodes
attached, etc. “Learner” explains that he had a “slight heart
condition”
– “Teacher” is sat down in front of the “shock machine” and
given 25 word pairs (ex: “strong-arm”) and is
– Pre-recorded sounds were played at pre-determined shock
switches (ex: grunts)
– 150 volt level: “Ugh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you
I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.
Get me out of here please. My heart’s starting to bother me.
I refuse to go on. Let me out.”
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Experimental Conditions
• 1) Base Condition (con’t)
– The “experimenter” gave the same prods as in the Milgram study:
•
•
•
•
“Please go on” or “Please continue”
The experiment requires that you continue”
It is absolutely essential that you continue”
You have no other choice, you must continue”
– The experiment ended when either:
• The teacher refused to continue
• The teacher read the next item on the list of word pairs after having
pressed the 150 volt switch (a behavior which would indicate that the
subject would probably continue asking questions and shocking the
learner and, in Burger’s estimation, would have continued all the way to
450 volts)
– An immediate debriefing occurred
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Experimental Conditions
• 2) Modeled Refusal Condition
– Same basic setup as in condition 1 except:
– Two people would act as teachers: the real subject and, unknown
to the real subject, a confederate of the experimenter who would
also act as a teacher.
– This “second teacher” was always chosen as “teacher 1” and he or
she would begin asking the questions and administering the
“shocks” while “teacher 2” (the real subject) watched.
– After hearing the “ugh” sound when the 75 volt switch was pressed,
the teacher/confederate said, “I don’t know about this”. The
experimenter replied, “Please continue”. The teacher/confederate
said, “I don’t think I can do this” and pushed his chair away from the
shock machine.
– The experimenter asked the real subject to pick up where teacher 1
had left off
– The teacher/confederate sat quietly during the rest of the study,
avoiding eye contact with the real subject.
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Debriefing Vs. Milgram
• Milgram Debriefing: “…participants were
…told only that the shock generator’s labels
of shock intensity were appropriate for small
animals but not for humans and that the
confederate had been receiving considerably
milder shocks than his behavior indicated.
Because Milgram anticipated a much more
extensive series of experiments than Burger
did, he maintained some degree of deception
of most participants until he was ready to
send them a full report on the intent of the
research …”
–
Alan C. Elms, University of California, Davis, “Obedience Lite”, American Psychologist,
January 2009 (p. 34)
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Debriefing Vs. Milgram
• Burger Debriefing: “As soon as the
experimenter announced that the study was
over, he told the participant that the shock
generator was not real and that the
confederate was not receiving electric
shocks. The confederate entered the lab
room at that point to assure the participant
that he was fine….the participant was [then]
escorted to a nearby room, where the
principal investigator conducted a thorough
debriefing.” - Burger, p. 7
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Results
• Base condition: 70% had to be stopped after
administering the 150 volts (prediction: they would
have gone on to 450 volts)
• Modeled Refusal Condition: 63% had to be stopped
after administering the 150 volts
• No statistical difference between the two conditions
(this is contrary to Burger’s prediction that modeled refusal
would decrease obedience)
• No statistical difference between men and women,
and either no or minor effects for desirability for
control or empathy
• No statistical difference between Burger’s Base
condition and the similar condition in Milgram’s study
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Burger’s Conclusions
• “My partial replication of Milgram’s procedure suggests that
average Americans react to this laboratory situation today much
the same way they did 45 years ago….the same situational
factors that affected obedience in Milgram’s participants still
operate today.” - p. 8
• “I cannot say with absolute certainty that the present participants
would have continued to the end of the shock generator’s range
at a rate similar to Milgram’s participants…. however, numerous
studies have demonstrated the effect of incrementally larger
requests.” - p. 8
• “I interpret this high rate of obedience …as a demonstration of
the power of …situational forces…” - p. 9
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Alan Elms Comment
• He expected there to be less obedience in
the Burger study because of how the world
has changed since Milgram’s time:
–
–
–
–
Teachings of MLK and other social activists
“deceptive government efforts”
‘60s: less trust in government
Video of the Milgram study:
• Subjects had crew cuts
• Many referred to the experimenter as “Sir”
– Publicizing of Milgram’s study
– “Mall Cop”
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Alan Elms Comment
• Believes that Burger did not find a lower level of obedience
because, in his effort to get IRB approval for the study, he
excluded many participants who probably would not have
obeyed:
– People who had heard of the Milgram study
– People who “might have a negative reaction to the
experience”
• These are exactly the people who would have disobeyed
– Burger gave participants only a 15 volt shock instead of
Milgram’s 45 volts
• This “…may have led them to assume that the shock
generator was not really that shocking.”
– “For all these reasons, the participants who survived
Burger’s double screening and who then faced the redefined
shock board may have been considerably more obedient on
average than an unscreened population…” - Elms, p. 35
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Resources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABC National Radio program, “Beyond the Shock Machine”:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/radioeye/stories/2008/2358103.htm
http://www.stanleymilgram.com/
Burger, J.M. (2009). Replication milgram: woulud people still obey
today?. American Psychologist, January 2009.
Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience Lite. American Psychologist, January
2009.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to
authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76
Interview with Dr. Thomas Blass, Milgram’s biographer, on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105310424&ft=1&
f=1021
New York Times:
– http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/health/research/01mind.html
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram
www.ThePsychFiles.com
Resources
• Videos:
– http://www.livevideo.com/video/7CB9CBD939C648519A52B
18224199D3F/milgram-experiment.aspx
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nS8PsbRUkM&feature=r
elated
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoUF5qZnI-E
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn5Dj-mK8H8
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w
• Derren Brown:
– http://derrenbrownart.com/blog/?p=2102
www.ThePsychFiles.com