Milgram's Obedience Study Overview

Milgram's Obedience Study

• Background: Milgram's research was influenced by historical events like the My Lai massacre and the Vietnam War, and the actions of Adolf Eichmann.
• Aim: To investigate obedience to authority, specifically when no threats were involved, focusing on cases where authority figures simply asserted their right to control.
• Procedure: Participants were recruited under the guise of a learning and memory experiment. They were assigned the role of "teacher" (always the participant), while a confederate played the role of "learner." Teachers administered electric shocks of increasing voltage when the learner answered incorrectly. A sample shock (45 volts) was administered. The experimenter encouraged the teacher to continue despite the learner's distress.
• Results: 62.5% of participants administered the highest level of shock (368 volts on average).
• Variations & Findings:
  • Proximity of learner: Decreased obedience as learner's distress increased (physical proximity, hearing cries/shouts, being in the same room, having to force a hand onto the shock plate).
  • Proximity of authority: Obedience decreased when the experimenter gave orders over the phone (21%).
  • Location: Obedience decreased when the experiment was conducted in different locations (e.g., a hotel instead of a university basement).
  • Other Variations: Obedience reduced when the experimenter was replaced, or the experimenter and a stooge gave conflicting instructions. This emphasizes the importance of perceived legitimacy of authority.
• Observations: Participants often displayed stress and discomfort but still continued. This suggests obedience isn't entirely due to personality.
• Explanations 1 (Agentic State): Participants might have viewed themselves as agents of the authority figure, detaching personal responsibility from their actions. Also, absorption in the procedure and perceived competence of the authority.
• Explanations 2 (Social Beliefs and Legitimacy): Participants' obedience was influenced by social norms, their understanding of the context, gradual escalation of demands, and uncertainty about what others would do. Having a role model who defied the authority reduced obedience dramatically.
• Milgram's Personal Insights: Milgram wanted to understand how ordinary people could commit inhumane acts. He was intrigued by the conditions under which people obey authority figures even when their actions go against their conscience.
• Milgram's Methodology: The study was conducted at Yale University in May 1962, with 40 male participants aged 20-50. There was a simulated shock generator to trick participants in this experiment (shock was faked). The experimenter gave verbal prompts and warnings (slight shock, moderate shock, etc.) using increasing voltage to the deception of making teachers more and more involved.
• Milgram's findings: Majority of participants went to the highest voltage when encouraged by the experimenter in a white coat (65%).

Other Studies: Reicher, Burger, Slater, Gonzalez-Franco

• Reicher, Haslam, & Smith (2012): Argued that obedience wasn't simply "unthinking" but rather active identification with the experimenter and their goals; obedience is contingent on the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure (the participant must identify with the authority’s goals). Their research found "engaged followership", where willingness to take unpleasant action depends on the tasks seem virtuous to those being asked to act.
• Burger (2009): Ethically replicated Milgram's study. Critically examined Milgram’s methodology that asked the question: Do participants stop at or before 150 volts? Showed 30% stopped at or before 150 volts in his replication vs. 17.5% for the Milgram's original study, and 70% vs 82.5% respectively, when going beyond 150v.
• Slater et al (2006): Used virtual reality to create a more realistic scenario for obedience studies. Teachers showed physiological responses (e.g., arousal via skin conductance) even though they knew the learner was virtual.
• Gonzalez-Franco et al (2018): Used VR to measure teachers' focus on the correct response in answering questions, suggesting that participants likely considered the learners' experience and outcomes, even when continuing obedience.

Ethical Considerations

• Informed Consent: Participants were deceived, raising questions about informed consent.

• Right to Withdraw: The procedures compromised participants' right to withdraw.

• Potential Harm: Participants potentially experienced anxiety and psychological harm. Subsequent analyses showed the majority of participants were glad they participated in the study, while a small minority expressed regret.

• Criticisms: Milgram's use of lab research raised ecological validity concerns. Deception and lack of generalizability to everyday situations posed important ethical and research concerns. Opportunities for non-laboratory research were also suggested.

• Hofling et al (1966): Found high obedience rates in a real-world setting (hospital) to medical authority figures. This showed high obedience to authority even in a natural environment.

Implications

• The common image of Milgram's research as solely reflecting "unthinking obedience" is inaccurate. Active engagement and identification with the authority figure, perception of legitimacy, and the perception of positive outcomes from obedience are key factors in obedience.