PS2030 – REVISON
MILGRAM (1961) STUDY OF OBEDIENCE
MILGRAM EXPERIMENT:
Aim: Study the concept of destructive obedience and whether ordinary American
citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict plain because
they were instructed to.
Ppts: 40 males, aged 20-50 years old and were volunteers, paid $4.50.
Procedure: ppts were introduced to a confed and selection of teacher and student was
rigged (fake draw of sticks), ppt was always teacher. There was another confed in a
lab coat who was the experimenter. Exp told ppt (teacher) to administer an electric
shock each time learner got answer wrong (15-450 volts).
- if ppt refused, four prods were given (pls continue, experiment requires you to
continue, it is essential you continue & you have no other choice).
Learner’s reactions: 270v a loud scream, at 300v learner pounded on wall, 315v
learner pounded and gave no response afterwards.
Findings: All ppts continued to 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts.
MILGRAM VARIATIONS:
After original exp, Milgram carried out variations to consider if situational variables might
create greater/less obedience.
Proximity: When learner and teacher were in the same room, obedience dropped to
40%.
Location: (Legitimate authority influences how likely someone will obey). Location
was in a rundown building (compared to og university location). Obedience fell to
47.5%.
Uniform: (Appropriate clothing demonstrates legitimacy of authority.) In this
variation, the exp was called away and role was given to layperson. Obedience
dropped to 20%.
Ppts decide: when ppts were given autonomy on choosing the shock level, mean
level chosen was 50v.
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT:
(Dolinksi et al., 2017): replicated Milgram’s study, but controlled the sex of ppts and
learner to evaluate whether ppts are more or less likely to shock a woman than a man.
80ppts, 40 m, 40 fm. Only ten shock buttons and ppts were exhorted with prompts by
researchers. Also signed an informed consent form that allowed them to withdraw at
any moment. 90% of ppts were willing to shock the learner at the highest level. When
the learner was a woman, the number of ppts refusing to carry out commands was 3x
greater.
(Nick, 2010): a French tv show replicated Milgram’s study. Main conceptual
difference was that authority was reinforced by tv, not an experimenter. 80% of ppts
delivered the maximum shock voltage of 460 to an apparently unconscious man.
, Cross cultural support: (Miranda et al., 1981) found an obedience rate of over 90%
to max shock level amongst Spanish students. (Mantell, 1971) found an obedience
rate of 85% to max shock level amongst the general German male population.
EVIDENCE AGAINST:
(Kilham & Mann, 1974): replicated the study on Australian m+f students. Obedience
rate to max shock level for males was 40% and females was 16%.
(Haslan & Reicher, 2012): propose an alternative explanation: social identity theory.
According to SIT, ppts identified with the experimenter and the science of the study.
When obedience levels fell it was because they identified less with the science.
Evidence comes from their analysis of the four prods. The first three prods don’t
demand obedience but appeal for the help of the experiment ‘the exp requires you to
continue’. The 4th demands obedience ‘you have no choice, you must go on’ and
every time it was used, the ppt quit.
Criticism: breaching ethical guidelines including deception (concealed the aim of the
experiment), right to withdraw (could not withdraw due to the prompts given) and
protection from harm (many ppts reported high anxiety and stress during the
experiment and also felt guilt). However, ppts were debriefed afterwards and a follow
up survey a year later highlighted that 84% of ppts said they were happy to take part
in the experiment and contribute to scientific research.
SITUATION VS PERSONALITY:
The Agentic State (Milgram, 1974): Milgram argues that in certain situations
individuals become an instrument of authority which frees them from their conscience
as they are no longer fully autonomous. The shift from autonomy to agency is called
the agentic shift and this happens when someone perceives someone else as a figure
of authority.
(Bickman, 1974): conducted a field experiment where individuals were asked to
perform tasks by three different types of confeds: casually dressed, milkman and
uniformed guard. 76% of ppts followed order of guard compared to 30% of casually
dressed.
The Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950): A type of personality that is
associated with higher levels of obedience. Elms and Milgram (1966) surveyed 20 of
the obedient ppts who administered the full 450v and 20 disobedient ppts who refused
to continue. They completed personality questionnaires including the F-scale. They
found that obedient ppts scored higher on the F-scale in comparison to disobedient
ppts. Results also revealed that they admired the experimenter in the ppt. However,
this is merely a correlation and perhaps there is a third variable, such as education.
- Research by Middendorp & Meleon (1990) found that less-educated ppl are more
likely to display authoritarian characteristics than well-educated ppl.
