Milgram's Obedience Studies Quiz

Milgram's Obedience Studies

• Influences: Milgram's research was influenced by events like the My Lai massacre and the Vietnam War, and figures like Adolf Eichmann.
• Aim: To investigate obedience to authority in the absence of threat, focusing on situations where authority figures simply asserted control.
• Procedure: Participants were recruited for a "learning and memory" experiment. Participants were assigned the role of "teacher" (always the real participant) and the role of "learner" (a confederate). Teachers were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the learner for incorrect answers. A sample shock of 45 volts was given. Experimenter encouraged the teacher to continue despite learner's distress.
• Results: 62.5% of participants administered the highest level of shock (360 volts). The average maximum shock given was 368 volts.
• Variations:
  • Proximity of the learner: Physical proximity (in the same room, having to force learner's hand onto shock plate), more visible distress, increased refusal rates
  • Proximity of authority: Giving orders over the telephone greatly reduced obedience (21%).
  • Location of the experiment: Obedience was higher in a "Yale University" setting (65%) than a more casual setting (48%).
• Interpreting the results:
  • Participants showed distress but continued to administered shock.
  • Some factors like shock levels indicate a participants' decision making on applying shock. Only two subjects never exceeded 150 volts. 28 subjects never went beyond 75 volts
  • Experimenter calling stop, learner encouraging to continue. Experimenter being called away, a stooge appearing, impacted obedience rates.
• Observations: Participants were often stressed but most continued. Not all personality, but contextual factors.
• Explanations:
  • Agentic state: Participants viewed themselves as agents of the experimenter.
  • Gradual increments/unthinking obedience: The gradual increase in shock intensity made it harder to stop.
  • Legitimacy/social beliefs: Participants questioned if the context or procedure was legitimate.
  • Uncertainty/following others: Participants considered what other participants would do; a model to rebel reduced obedience to 10%.
• Milgram's own notes: Examined factors of authority/conscience and the conditions under which obedience to authority occurred, wondering how ordinary people could do inhumane things.

Other Research (Reicher, Burger, Slater, Gonzalez-Franco etc.)

• Reicher, Haslam & Smith (2012): Argued that obedience wasn't "unthinking," but active identification with the experimenter's goals (especially those perceived as “progressive”). This identification predicted obedience in Milgram-style variations.
• Reicher et al.: "engaged followership": Obedience results depend on the experimenter connecting with participants, making the task seem virtuous.
• Ethics: Milgram's study raised ethical concerns regarding informed consent, participant's rights to withdraw, and potential for anxiety/harm.
• Burger (2009): Replicated elements of Milgram's study up to 150 volts to explore whether similar patterns of obedience emerge at critical junctures. Ethical limitations (how to ethically proceed further).
• Burger (2009) replication results:
  • Stopped at/before 150 volts: 30% (Burger study) vs. 17.5% (Milgram)
  • Continued after 150 volts: 70% (Burger) vs 82.5% (Milgram)
• Virtual Reality (Slater et al, 2006): Participants showed physiological reactions (skin conductance) to the perceived "shocks" but were aware they were simulations, demonstrating psychological reactivity as if the shocks were real.
• Gonzalez-Franco et al (2018): Shows participants in a VR version had a greater emphasis on helping when a learner was involved. This suggests that participants continued, considering the learner's fate.

Criticisms of Milgram's research

• Laboratory research: Artificial conditions and context may lead to limited external validity.
• Deception: Participants were deceived about the nature and purpose of the study.
• Ecological validity: Participants are conscious of being observed and questioned, impacting results.

Hofling et al (1966):

• Study: Nurses were instructed to administer an excessive dose of a drug ("Astroten") by a "Dr. Hanford"
• Results: 21 out of 22 nurses prepared to administer the drug, despite it violating hospital protocol.

Social Psychology

• Allport (1924): Focused on individuals' attributes impacting group dynamics.
  • Argued social psych was just individual psych applied to social stimuli.
  • Missed the importance of group norms.
• Sherif (1935): Studied formative processes of group norms in forming judgments of movement.
  • Participants adjusted to a group norm over time.
  • Participants conformed to a common position over time.
  • Norms persisted even after interacting with others.
• Asch (Studies): Studied conformity with a line judgment task.
  • Participants' responses were impacted by seeing other participants give obviously incorrect answers.
  • 33% of participants conformed on half or more trials.
• Deutsch and Gerrard (1955): Proposed a dual-process theory incorporating informational (Sherif) and normative (Asch) influences.
• Contemporary Research -Turner (1991): Focus on group identity and expectation of in-group agreement's impact on judgments.
• Platow et al (2005): Laughter and pain responses depend on perceived in-group or out-group status showing an in-group influence.

In summary,

Social groups operate with their own unique processes. social influences change over time.

Test your knowledge about Milgram's Obedience Studies, which examine the influence of authority on human behavior. Explore the significant factors and results of this landmark research in psychology. Understand how background events influenced the study design and outcomes.