Overview
This lecture reviews Stanley Milgram's 1963 obedience experiment, covering its historical background, methodology, results, and key evaluations regarding ethical considerations and generalizability.
Background & Aim
- Milgram was a social psychologist interested in understanding obedience, especially in the context of the Holocaust.
- He was influenced by Nazi war criminals’ defense that they were “just following orders” at the Nuremberg Trials.
- Milgram theorized that obedience to authority played a key role in the Holocaust and wanted to test if ordinary people could perform harmful acts under authority.
- The study aimed to investigate how far people would go in obeying authority, even if it meant harming another person.
Sample & Methodology
- Used a volunteer sample (newspaper ad), paying participants $4.50.
- Sample: 40 males, ages 20-50, diverse backgrounds, students excluded.
- Independent measures design; no control group.
- Controlled observation in a lab setting; collected both quantitative (shock levels) and qualitative (participant comments) data.
Procedure
- Participants assigned as “teachers,” confederate always the “learner.”
- Teachers instructed to administer electric shocks (not real) for incorrect answers, increasing voltage by 15V increments up to 450V.
- Learner (confederate) pretended distress, was unresponsive after 300V.
- Researchers used standard verbal prods to encourage continuation: "please continue," "the experiment requires that you continue," etc.
- Experiment ended when participant refused to continue or reached 450V.
- Participants debriefed and reconciled with the learner after.
Results & Findings
- Yale students predicted only 3% would go to the highest voltage.
- In reality, 65% of participants administered the maximum 450V; 100% went to 300V.
- 14 out of 40 participants defied the experimenter before 450V.
- Many displayed signs of extreme stress: sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and three had uncontrollable seizures.
Conclusions & Explanations
- Ordinary people are likely to follow authority even against their morals.
- Obedience increased due to perceived authority (Yale’s reputation), meaningful purpose, participant consent, and lab setting.
- Participants rationalized obedience by believing shocks were painful but not permanently harmful.
Evaluation & Ethics
- Controlled setting increased reliability but reduced ecological validity.
- All-male, local sample limits generalizability.
- Major ethical issues: deception, emotional distress, unclear right to withdraw.
- Debriefing and post-study follow-up attempted to address harm.
- Most participants reported no regret, but self-report data may be biased.
- Study influenced ethical standards in modern psychology.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Obedience — following orders from an authority figure.
- Confederate — an actor aware of the true nature of the experiment.
- Controlled Observation — an observational study in a controlled, lab-like setting.
- Ecological Validity — how well findings generalize to real-life situations.
- Demand Characteristics — cues that influence participant behavior in line with experimenter expectations.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review ethical guidelines for psychological research.
- Read Milgram’s original 1963 study for more detail.