Milgram (1963) Study

Aim

• To determine if individuals would obey authority to the extent of causing physical harm to others.

Background

• Context of the Nazi atrocities leading to the study.
• Milgram hypothesized a situational explanation for obedience.
• Discussion with colleagues predicted low obedience rates (<3% delivering maximum voltage).

Research Method

• Setting: Laboratory-controlled observation at Yale University.
• Design: Independent measures.
• Stooges: Mr. William (experimenter) and Mr. Wallace (learner).

Sample

• Volunteer sampling of 40 men aged 20-50 from diverse educational backgrounds in New Haven.

Procedure

• Participants were paid $4.50 and assigned as 'teachers'; deception involved regarding the study focus.
• Participants received a 45v test shock; the learner never actually received shocks.
• Memory task involved word pair recognition; wrong answers led to increasing shocks (increments of 15v).

Prods

• Prompts used to encourage continuation:
  1. "Please continue/please go on."
  2. "The experiment requires you to continue."
  3. "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
  4. "You have no other choice, you must go on."

Learner

• Responded until 300v; pounding signals started at 300v.
• No response post-300v shocks.

Teacher

• Instructed to increase voltage with each mistake.
• Observed distress behaviors: sweating, shaking, nervous laughter.

Results

• 65% administered maximum 450v.
• Mean voltage was 368v.
• Participants often rated the pain of 450v as extremely high (mean 13.42).

Conclusions

1. Situational factors influenced obedience:
   • Legitimate setting, financial obligations, proximity to authority and victim, personal responsibility, and authority figure’s presence.
2. Higher obedience to authority than anticipated.
3. Obedience creates stress due to conflicting social norms (obeying vs. harming).

Strengths and Weaknesses

• Strengths: Control over variables, reliability, validity of design, and objective measures.
• Weaknesses: Lack of generalizability, ethical concerns, potential psychological harm.

Ethical Issues

• Lack of informed consent, deception, withdrawal rights questioned, possible lasting distress.

Applications

• Encouraging ethical resistance in various settings (offices, educational institutions, hospitals).

Explanation

• Demonstrates that perceived authority influences destructive obedience, but resistance varies among individuals.