Psychology (9990) | Milgram (obedience)

Welcome to the Core Study: Milgram (Obedience)

Hello! This chapter explores one of the most famous (and controversial) studies in Psychology history: Stanley Milgram's investigation into Obedience.

Why study this? Understanding Milgram's work helps us answer a chilling question: How far will ordinary people go to obey an authority figure, even if it means harming an innocent person? This core study perfectly demonstrates the power of the social environment over individual behaviour, making it central to the Social Approach.

Section 1: The Social Approach Context

The Social Approach argues that our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are heavily influenced by the social context we are in, including the actual, implied, or imagined presence of others.

Milgram's study fits here because it investigates how the powerful social role of an "Experimenter" (an authority figure) and the controlled research setting (the situation) can override a participant's individual moral conscience. The psychology being investigated is fundamentally about obedience and social pressure.

Key Takeaway: Milgram tests the idea that bad behaviour isn't always caused by bad people, but sometimes by powerful situations.

Section 2: The Study: Behavioral Study of Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

2.1 Background and Aims

Background: The World War II Question

Milgram conducted this study shortly after World War II. Many people questioned how Nazi soldiers and officers could participate in atrocities like the Holocaust, often claiming they were "just following orders." Milgram wanted to scientifically test whether this obedience was unique to German people (a dispositional hypothesis) or if it was a widespread human trait triggered by certain situations (a situational hypothesis).

Aim(s) of the Study

The primary aim was to investigate the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Specifically, Milgram wanted to measure how far a person would go in obeying an instruction from an authority figure if it meant harming another person via electric shocks.

2.2 Procedure and Methodology

Research Method and Setting

• Method: It was a laboratory experiment and a controlled observation. Although often called an experiment, Milgram’s main study did not include an Independent Variable (IV) to manipulate; it was primarily measuring the Dependent Variable (DV) of obedience.
• Setting: The study took place in a laboratory at Yale University in the USA. The high prestige of the location was a critical control variable to establish the Experimenter's authority.

Sample and Participants

• Sample Size: 40 male participants.
• Sampling Technique: Volunteer/Self-Selected Sampling via a newspaper advertisement asking for participants for a study on "memory and learning."
• Demographics: Aged 20 to 50, with a range of occupations (unskilled workers to professionals). They were paid \$4.50 just for turning up.

The Setup (The Deception)

The study used a high level of deception (lying to participants about the true nature of the study):

1. Upon arrival, the participant (Ppt) met the Experimenter (E) and another participant (a confederate—an actor working for Milgram).
2. The Ppt and the confederate drew rigged slips of paper. The real Ppt was always assigned the role of the Teacher (T) and the confederate was always the Learner (L).
3. The Learner was strapped into a chair in an adjacent room with electrodes attached. The Teacher was given a sample shock (45 volts) to ensure they believed the machine was real.
4. The Teacher sat in front of the shock generator, a panel of 30 switches ranging from 15V (Slight Shock) up to 450V (labelled 'XXX'). This voltage level was the Dependent Variable (DV)—the level of obedience measured.

The Procedure: The Learning Task and Prods

The Teacher (Ppt) was instructed to read out word pairs and test the Learner (Confederate) for memory.

1. Every time the Learner made a mistake, the Teacher was told to deliver an electric shock, increasing the voltage by 15V each time.
2. Crucial Syllabus Note: In the version of the study specified by the 9990 syllabus, the teacher did not receive voice-feedback (screams or protests) from the victim.
3. The only feedback was pre-arranged:
   • At 300V and 315V, the Learner pounded loudly on the wall before falling silent.
   • For the remainder of the study, the Learner gave no response at all (silent).
4. If the Teacher hesitated or asked to stop, the Experimenter used four standardized Prods (verbal prompts) in order:
   1. "Please continue."
   2. "The experiment requires that you continue."
   3. "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
   4. "You have no other choice, you must continue."

2.3 Results

Quantitative Findings (Numerical Data)

Milgram found shockingly high levels of obedience:

• 100% (all 40 participants) administered shocks up to 300V.
• 65% (26 out of 40 participants) continued all the way to the maximum 450V shock.
• The average maximum shock administered was 368V.

Qualitative Findings (Observations)

The observers noted extreme signs of distress in the participants, demonstrating a high level of internal conflict:

• Participants exhibited nervous tension, including trembling, sweating, stuttering, and nervous laughter.
• Some participants had seizures and nervous fits.
• Participants frequently argued with the Experimenter, asking him to stop or confirming the Learner was okay, but they were mostly powerless against the Experimenter’s commands.

2.4 Conclusions

Milgram concluded that individuals are highly obedient to authority figures, even to the point of potentially harming another person. The study strongly supports the situational hypothesis—the situation (the prestige of Yale, the Experimenter's uniform, the standardized prods) was a powerful determinant of behaviour, overriding dispositional factors (the participant's conscience).

Milgram later suggested that participants entered an agentic state, where they felt they were merely acting as an agent for the authority figure, shifting responsibility away from themselves.

Key Takeaway: The experimenter's authority was the strongest factor; even without hearing screams (just the banging), most people went to the maximum voltage.

Section 3: Evaluation and Analysis

3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

• High Controls: As the study took place in a lab setting, Milgram controlled many extraneous variables, such as the exact timing and nature of the Learner's responses (the banging) and the standardised four prods. This makes the study highly reliable and easy to replicate.
• Quantitative and Qualitative Data: The study collected robust quantitative data (the 65% obedience rate) and rich qualitative data (observations of distress), providing a comprehensive picture of obedience.
• Application to Everyday Life: The findings have high relevance for explaining real-world obedience, such as following orders in military or medical settings.

Weaknesses

• Low Ecological Validity: The task (administering shocks for a memory test) is artificial and does not reflect real-life situations where obedience might be required. Therefore, the findings might not generalise to everyday obedience (like obeying a traffic warden).
• Sampling Issues: The sample was small (40 males) and used self-selection (volunteers), potentially attracting a specific type of personality. This lowers the generalisability to women or people from different cultural backgrounds.
• Possible Demand Characteristics: Due to the artificial setting, critics argue participants may have suspected the shocks were fake and therefore played along, reducing the study's internal validity.

3.2 Ethical Issues (The Biggest Controversy)

Milgram’s study is famous for violating several key ethical guidelines:

• Deception: Participants were lied to about the true aim (they thought it was memory, not obedience), the reality of the shock machine, and the presence of the Learner (who was a confederate).
• Valid Consent / Informed Consent: Since they were deceived, participants could not give informed consent to participate in a study about harming another person.
• Protection from Harm (Physical and Psychological): Participants experienced extreme levels of stress, anxiety, and distress (as shown by the qualitative results). This violated the guideline to minimise harm.
• Right to Withdraw: Although participants technically had the right to withdraw, the Experimenter's use of standardized prods (e.g., "You have no other choice") made it difficult and challenging for them to stop.

Mitigation: Milgram defended his study by arguing that participants were thoroughly debriefed immediately afterwards, shown that the Learner was unharmed, and given psychiatric follow-ups, which showed most participants were glad they had taken part.

3.3 Issues and Debates

Individual and Situational Explanations (Crucial Debate)

This is the core debate relating to Milgram:

• Situational Explanation (Milgram’s View): Milgram strongly argued that obedience is caused by the environment, roles, and pressure of the situation (e.g., Yale’s prestige, the Experimenter’s presence, the sequential nature of the task). The 65% obedience rate suggests that situational forces are overwhelming.
• Individual Explanation (Alternative View): This perspective suggests that traits like personality, moral strength, or disposition determine obedience. Milgram’s high percentage might hide individual differences—after all, 35% *did* defy the authority and withdraw.

Application to Everyday Life

The findings are crucial for understanding and potentially preventing destructive obedience in areas such as military conflicts, abusive relationships, or within corporate hierarchies where people "follow orders" without questioning ethics.