Milgram Shock Experiment

Background

• Stanley Milgram's initial plan was to compare obedience levels between the United States and Germany.
• Inspired by the Nazi regime, Milgram believed German culture might have unique obedience tendencies.
• Initial experiments in the U.S. showed unexpectedly high levels of obedience, leading Milgram to abandon cross-cultural comparisons.
• Results suggested a universal human susceptibility to authority.

Aim

• Measure obedience to authority even when instructions conflict with personal conscience.
• Quantify shock levels participants would administer under authority instruction.
• Investigate conditions affecting obedience/disobedience to authority.

Sample

• Size: 40 male participants, aged 20-50.
• Recruitment: Through newspaper ads and direct mail (self-selecting sampling).
• Demographics: Participants were from various occupations and educational backgrounds.
• Compensation: Participants were paid $4.50, regardless of experiment outcome.

Procedure

• Participants paired with confederates in a rigged role assignment (always as "teacher").
• Participants were told they were studying punishment's effects on learning.
• Setting: Separate rooms for teacher and learner, connected via an electric shock generator.
• The teacher administered shocks for incorrect answers.

The Learning Task

• Involved reading word pairs and administering shocks for incorrect responses.
• Shocks were fake, but participants were made to believe they were real.

Fake Shock Generator

• Device with 30 switches, labeled from 15 to 450 volts.
• Participants experienced a mild shock to believe in the setup's authenticity.

Learner

• The learner was a confederate who feigned distress at increasing voltage levels.

Experimenter

• The authority figure, dressed in a lab coat, used scripted prods to encourage continuation.

Results

• 65% of participants administered the maximum 450 volts.
• 100% went up to at least 300 volts.
• High tension and discomfort noted among participants.

Conclusion

• People are likely more obedient to authority than expected, even to harmful extents.
• Situational factors like authority presence and institutional prestige influence obedience.

Ethical Issues

• Deception: Participants were unaware of the true nature of the study.
• Psychological distress: Many participants experienced significant stress.
• Milgram did not fully debrief all participants promptly.

Variations and Replications

• Variations altered conditions such as proximity and authority figure presentation, influencing obedience rates.

Critical Evaluation

• Recent analysis shows Milgram’s methodology and claims were not as standardized as initially presented.
• Some scholars critique the parallels drawn between Milgram's findings and real-world atrocities.

Modern Interpretations

• Engaged Followership Theory posits participants identified with the scientific mission, not blind obedience.
• Situational factors often outweigh personal traits, but personality still plays a role in obedience.

Replications

• Modern replications confirm situational pressures' powerful role in obedience but adhere to stricter ethical standards.