AS Psych: Milgram (obedience)
Psychology Being Investigated
1. Social pressure is the influence of a group of people/person on another person/group
2. Obedience is the result of social pressure where one person complies with a direct order of an authority figure
3. Destructive obedience is when obedience has potential to cause harm/injury to another person
Background
“Germans are different” hypothesis
– Suggests Germans poses some defective traits which make extreme levels of obedience possible, leading to Holocaust atrocities
– Milgram wanted to challenge this hypothesis
Situational explanation
– Many people who find themselves in a similar situation would harm other humans under orders of an authority figure
Aim
1. To investigate the extent to which individuals show obedience to an authority figure even when it results in physical harm to another.
Method
Research method: Controlled observation in a lab setting
Research Design: Independent Measures
Sampling technique: Volunteer
Sample
– 40 male
– 20-50 years old
– From New Haven and surrounding communities
– Recruited through newspaper ads + direct mail solicitation
– Paid $4.50 to participate (non-conditional on completion)
Procedure
– Took place at Yale University‘s state of the art laboratory
– P believed they were participating in a study on memory
– P arrived at the lab, introduced to “Mr. Wallace” (stooge, MW), a middle aged Irish-American accountant who was deemed “likable” by observers
– Both P and MW told they would be allocated the roles of “learner” and “teacher”
– Roles allocated by drawing slips of paper from a hat → rigged! both slips said “teacher”
– P and MW taken to another room where MW was strapped to an “electric chair”
– Electrodes placed on MW’s wrist, and electrode paste was applied to “prevent blisters and burns”
– P told electrodes were connected to a shock generator in the next room
– P shown shock generator and told shocks were painful, but not dangerous
– P given a 45V shock on the wrist → came from a battery attached to the shock generator when the third switch was pressed
– P seated behind a wall where they could hear, but not see MW
– Behavior observed behind one-way mirrors
– Experimenter (E): John Williams, a 31 year old high school teacher; wore a grey technician coat + behaved seriously
Preliminary learning task
– 10 words
– Learner gets 3 right, 7 wrong
Actual learning task
– P read a list of words to MW, then read first word in word-pair and 4 options
– Learner selects an option by pressing one of 4 switches in front of him → lights up one of 4 quadrants above shock generator
– P told to give MW a shock for every incorrect response, in increasing Volts (15V), announcing the exact V before every shock
– Given another list of words (different from preliminary task)
– Instructed to keep starting from the top of the list after finishing, until MW gets all correct
– MW protests and bangs wall after 300V and 315V administered
– After 300V, MW stops responding to questions
– E tells P to wait 5-10 secs before considering no response an incorrect response (give shock)
– 4 prods were used if P refused to continue:
1) “Please continue” / “Please go on”
2) “The experiment requires that you continue”
3) “It is absolutely essential that you continue”
4) “You have no choice, you must go on”
– Experiment considered complete either when P administers the 450V shock OR refuses to continue
– P interviewed and debriefed → asked to rate how painful they thought the shocks were on a scale of 14
– P met MW to reassure them no actual harm was committed and MW was, in fact, okay
Results
Quantitative
– 35% challenged destructive obedience
– 40/40 participants went up till 300V
– 26/40 went up till the maximum Volts (450V)
– 14/40 displayed nervous laughing fits
– Perceived painfulness of shocks (out of 14): 13.42 mean
Qualitative
– Many P showed extreme signs of tension (sweating, groaning, laughing)
– 3 participants had full-blown seizures
– Verbal responses included: “I’m gonna chicken out… I can’t do that to a man, I’ll hurt his heart”
Conclusion
1. Individuals are far more obedient to authority figures than expected
2. Possible reasons why high obedience was observed in this study (according to Milgram)
– Yale University is a reputable location → more “legit” in a sense
– P were paid to take part, though they were not required to continue all the way to keep the money, so they felt an obligation to finish the study
– P believes MW has entered the study voluntarily, like himself
Ethical Issues
Deception – P were deceived on the aim of the study, believing they were participating in a memory test rather than a study on obedience
Informed consent – could not be given, since they did not know the real aim of the study
Protection from Harm – P were put under a stressful situation, and may have suffered psychological distress as well as physical harm (those that had seizures)
Right to Withdraw – P were given 4 prods which discouraged withdrawal from the experiment
Debriefing – P were debriefed at the end of the experiment and true nature of experiment was disclosed
Application to Daily Life
– Figures of authority need to be more aware of the impact of their instructions
– Systems need to be put in place to check and prevent destructive obedience in workplaces
– Individuals should be educated to resist destructive obedience in e.g. workplaces or healthcare