Understanding Milgram’s Experiment in A-Level Psychology
Research into obedience, including Milgram’s (1963) research into obedience and three of his variation studies: rundown office block (Experiment 10), telephonic instructions (Experiment 7), ordinary man gives orders (Experiment 13) as they demonstrate situational factors that encourage dissent.
Milgram’s 1963 experiment sought to unravel the extent of human obedience to authority figures. The study hope to understand whether individuals would comply with unjust directives, even to the extent of inflicting harm on others.
Experiment Setup: Milgram recruited 40 male participants under the guise of a study on “punishment and learning” in a controlled environment in Yale University. Each participant, assigned “the teacher” was paired with a confederate (a research actor), Mr. Wallace who acted as the “learner”.
Procedure: The teacher would read word pairs to Mr Wallace and administer electric shocks for errors, escalating in voltage with each mistake. The learner, situated in an adjacent room, simulated receiving shocks, accompanied by recorded screams. The experiment continued until the teacher refused to proceed or the maximum voltage of 450 volts was reached.
Findings:
- Milgram’s findings revealed alarming obedience levels
- All participants administering shocks up to 300 volts
- 65% continuing to the maximum 450 volts
This underscored the profound influence of authority on behavior
Advantages:
- Controlled Environment: Milgram conducted the experiment in a controlled laboratory setting, allowing for precise measurement of the cause-and-effect relationship between the independent variable (presence of authority figure) and the dependent variable (level of shocks administered)
- Standardization: The use of a standardized procedure, including consistent shock levels, bolstered reliability across participants
- Validity: Participants’ genuine stress reactions validated the task’s authenticity, enhancing the study’s validity
Disadvantages:
- Ethical Concerns: The study breached ethical guidelines, including deception and inadequate protection from harm
- Ecological Validity: Conducting the study in a laboratory setting may limit its generalizability to real-world obedience scenarios
- Population Validity: The study’s sample comprised only 40 male volunteers, hindering its generalization to broader populations
Milgram’s Experiment Variations Explained
Milgram conducted variations of his obedience experiment to explore different factors influencing obedience levels.
Experiment 10: Rundown Office Block
Milgram investigated how the prestige of a location affects obedience. Volunteers participated in a study at a Bridgeport office block, with rigged drawings assigning roles. Despite using the original apparatus, obedience dropped to 47.5% in this less prestigious setting. Milgram concluded that reduced location prestige led to decreased obedience.
Evaluation:
- Increased Ecological Validity: Conducting the study in a real office setting enhanced its ecological validity, reflecting everyday obedience scenarios
- Standardized Procedure: Despite the change in location, Milgram maintained standardized procedures, ensuring reliability across experiments.
Experiment 7: Telephonic Instructions
Milgram explored the impact of physical distance between the experimenter and the participant on obedience. When instructions were given over the phone, obedience plummeted to 22.5%. This suggested that reduced proximity to authority figures led to lower obedience levels.
Evaluation:
- Ecological Validity Concerns: Placing participants in an artificial laboratory setting to answer the phone may limit the study’s applicability to real-world obedience scenarios
Experiment 13: Ordinary Man Gives Orders
In this variation, an ordinary man replaced the authoritative experimenter, resulting in a dramatic decrease in obedience. Only 20% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock, contrasting with the 65% obedience rate in the original experiment. This highlighted the significant influence of authority figures on obedience levels.
Evaluation:
- Ethical Concerns: Deception was involved as participants were unaware of the accomplice’s role, raising ethical considerations regarding informed consent and deception.
These variations underscore the nuanced nature of obedience and its susceptibility to contextual factors, offering valuable insights into human behavior and authority dynamics.
Read here for more on Burger (2009) contemporary replication of Milgram’s experiment
Read here for more on Social Identity Theory
Read here for more on Sherif’s Robber Cave Experiment | Realistic Theory