Milgrams Obedience Experiment 1963 Soleil Mcghee Dita Henderson

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 a. 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 a. This experiment required a number of props such as a. Lab coat- to show authoritative power b. Shock generator- which had a number of switches that determined the voltage given to the “learner” c. 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 15 volts 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. a. 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 300 V, and at 315 V he would no longer answer the experimenter's questions a. 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 120 V the learner says it has started getting painful, at 135 V he gives out pained groans, at 150 V he starts asking to be let go, at 180 V the learner says he can't stand the pain, at 270 V he lets out an agonized scream, at 300 V he says he wil no longer provide answers, at 315 Volts he screams that he is no longer participating, and at 330 V 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 a. 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 150 V and 210 V) 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% 450 V Variation 4 - 30% 450 V Variation 7 - 20. 5% 450 V Variation 10 - 47. 5% 450 V Variation 17 - 10% 450 V Variation 18 - 92. 5% 450 V “. . . 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 a. 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 a. 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 45 V 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 450 V could say the learner can be held responsible for what is happening to them - less responsibility from 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 450 volts 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.