Milgram's Obedience Experiments Overview

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What was the primary aim of Milgram's research?

To explore obedience without the presence of threats (correct)

To demonstrate the effects of pain on learning

To investigate personality traits in individuals

To assess memory retention under stress

What was the average maximum shock level delivered by participants in the Milgram experiment?

368 volts (correct)

450 volts

300 volts

210 volts

How did the proximity of the authority figure affect obedience in Milgram's variations?

Obedience remained the same regardless of proximity

Obedience increased when orders were given over the telephone

Obedience increased with physical closeness

Obedience decreased when the authority figure was absent (correct)

Which of the following variations resulted in the highest level of obedience?

When the study took place in a basement Signup and view all the answers

What factor was identified as an important influence on obedience in Milgram's experiment?

The legitimacy of the authority figure Signup and view all the answers

In Milgram's experiment, what was the role of the stooge?

To feign being the learner receiving shocks Signup and view all the answers

What explanation was given for why participants continued to administer shocks despite distress from the learner?

They entered an agentic state, acting as an extension of authority Signup and view all the answers

What observation did Milgram's research suggest about the personality of participants who obeyed orders?

They exhibited signs of stress and discomfort Signup and view all the answers

What percentage of participants in Milgram's original study continued to the highest shock level of 450 volts?

65% Signup and view all the answers

What do Reicher, Haslam, and Smith argue regarding obedience in Milgram's experiments?

Obedience involves active identification with the experimenter. Signup and view all the answers

According to Burger's 2009 replication study, what percentage of participants stopped at or before 150 volts?

30% Signup and view all the answers

What key ethical issue is highlighted by Burger regarding Milgram's original study?

The integrity of informed consent. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of authority and compliance, what does 'engaged followership' depend on?

The perceived legitimacy and mission of the authority. Signup and view all the answers

What was one of the criticisms regarding the ecological validity of Milgram's experiments?

The behavior was observed within a controlled laboratory environment. Signup and view all the answers

What did Slater et al. (2006) find when utilizing virtual reality in their study?

Participants recognized the learner as real despite the shocks not occurring. Signup and view all the answers

What strategy did Milgram use to trick participants into believing in the effectiveness of punishment?

He claimed that learning was enhanced through pain. Signup and view all the answers

According to the implications of Milgram's research, what must authority figures work to establish?

A positive relationship with the influenced. Signup and view all the answers

How did Burger's research into stopping at 150 volts compare to Milgram's findings?

Burger found higher rates of stopping at 150 volts. Signup and view all the answers

What factor was shown to significantly reduce conformity in Milgram's experiments?

Having a rebel model. Signup and view all the answers

What did Gonzalez-Franco et al. (2018) find about the emphasis on correct answers in their study?

Emphasis increased when participants believed they were helping a learner. Signup and view all the answers

What did Milgram question about ordinary people during his studies?

How they can act inhumanely without conscience. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiments

Influencing Factors: Milgram's research was influenced by historical events like the My Lai massacre and the Vietnam War, and figures like Adolf Eichmann.
Aim: To investigate obedience without threat, focusing on sustained obedience through repeated commands from an authority figure.
Procedure: Participants were recruited for a study on learning and memory. They were randomly assigned to be "teachers" or "learners," but teachers were always participants, and learners were confederates (stooges). Teachers were instructed to administer electric shocks to the learners for incorrect answers, with increasing voltage for each error. A sample shock (45 volts) was given. The experimenter encouraged the teacher to continue, despite the learner's distress.
Results: 62.5% of participants continued to the highest shock level (450 volts), with the average maximum shock administered being 368 volts.
Variations & Findings:
- Psychological Proximity of Learner: Variations included louder cries, the learner being in the same room, or the teacher having to physically force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. Reduced obedience when the learner was more present.
- Proximity of Authority: Giving orders over the phone significantly reduced obedience (21%).
- Location: Obedience was lower in a different location (hotel, 48%) compared to the original location (basement, 65%).
Observations: Participants showed distress, were not psychopaths, and many chose to continue despite the distress, suggesting it wasn't solely personality differences.
Explanations:
- Agentic State: Participants see themselves as agents of the experimenter, detaching from personal responsibility.
- Gradual Increments: The initial small shocks gradually increased, making it harder to stop.
- Perceptions of Competence: Participants rely on the experimenter's expertise.
- Social Beliefs & Legitimacy: Participants' perception of an appropriate authority is crucial to obedience.
Participant Characteristics: Experimenters start arguing (reducing conformity), participants' uncertainty or the presence of a rebellious model all reduced maximal obedience.
Milgram's Motivations: Milgram was interested in understanding obedience to authority that leads to detrimental actions, asking how ordinary individuals could participate in inhumane acts.
Experiment Context: Milgram's experiment involving 40 men between ages 20-50 at Yale University in May 1962.

Other Research and Criticisms

Reicher, Haslam & Smith (2012): They argued that shocking wasn't about "unthinking obedience" but rather active identification with the experimenter and his mission. Identifying the learner's plight as potentially crucial would reduce obedience. This theory can help explain when obedience does or does not occur.
Reicher et al. introduced the concept of "engaged followership." Behaviors rely on the experimenter's ability to foster a sense of contributing to a valuable enterprise.
Ethics Concerns: Milgram's procedures raise significant ethical questions regarding informed consent, right to withdraw, and potential for psychological harm, but most participants later expressed gratitude for participating.
Burger (2009): Replicated Milgram, stopped at 150 volts, observing that this is a critical juncture.
- Found there was a key juncture at 150v for participants deciding whether or not to continue.
- Burger’s study found that a key factor was deciding whether or not to continue beyond 150v.
Virtual Reality Replications: Slater et al. (2006) and Gonzalez-Franco et al. (2018) utilized virtual reality to create a more immersive experience. These studies measured physiological responses showing comparable obedience levels, even if participants knew the learner wasn't real. Participants who experienced a virtual learner reported focusing on their voice as the teacher in order to emphasize the correct answers to assist the learner. This showed that they still focused on the learner despite it being just an image on the screen.
Criticisms of Laboratory Research: Laboratory research is criticized for potentially lacking ecological validity, with participants aware of observation. Deception and ecological validity are concerns in this type of research
Hofling et al. (1966): A field experiment examining obedience in a hospital setting yielded high conformity rates to an obviously inappropriate command. Nurses were ready to administer an overdose of medicine because an authority figure requested it. Nurses were more compliant than they appeared, but were in fact following the rules, which is a different idea than the results seen in Milgram's study, suggesting that some conditions influence the results differently

Implications

Milgram's experiment findings have presented a popular idea that involves unthinking obedience, however, it doesn't account for the importance of the individual, or the contextual details. This can lead to individuals being seen as passive recipients of an authority's influence or command. The correct aspect is that the authority figure must be seen as legitimate and something the participants can connect with which can make a significant difference concerning obedience levels.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Explore the fascinating insights from Milgram's obedience experiments, aimed at understanding the impact of authority on human behavior. Dive into the historical context, procedures, and shocking results that reveal the extent of obedience in experimental settings. This quiz will test your knowledge on various aspects of the study and its implications.