1.4 Milgrams research into obedience

1.4 Milgrams research into obedience

1. Stanley Milgram (1963) sought to find the answer to the question as to why so many people supported Hitlers plan during the Holocaust

   • Procedure
     • 40 male participants found through newspaper adverts, advertised as a study about memory and ways of improving memory.
     • Rigged draw for roles, meaning participant was always given the role of teacher, and confederate actor took on the role of learner, participants told they could leave the study at any time.
       • Learner was strapped into a chair and wired with electrodes, whilst the teacher was ordered to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock when the answer to a question was incorrect.
         • Shock level went form 15v to 450v (deathly)
           • At 300v learner pounded on the wall then gave no response,
         • When teacher tried to back out, experimenter used a series of prods. "Please continue", "the experimenter requires you to continue", "it is absolutely essential that you continue", "you have no other choice, you must go on"
   • Findings
     • No participants stopped before 300v.
     • 12.5% stopped at 300v
     • 65% continued to the highest voltage level.
     • Had 14 psychology students predict the participants behaviour. They estimated that max 3% of p. would continue to 450v.

2. Evaluation

   • Strengths
     • Good external validity
       • Lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Hofling et al (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high.
         • Study can be generalised to other situations
     • Supporting replication
       • Le Jeu de la Mort is a documentary about reality TV. Participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show, they were paid to give electric shocks in front of a studio audience
         • Similar to Milgram's findings, 80% delivered the maximum shock to an apparently unconscious man.
     • Low internal validity
       • Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants behaved the way they did because they knew it was a set up, therefore lacking internal validity. But in Gina Perry's (2013) experiment she reported that many of the participants expressed doubts about the shocks.
         • Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study where real shocks were administered to a puppy, 54% of males and 100% of females gave a fatal shocks.
   • Weaknesses
     • Ethical issues
       • Milgram led the participants to believe that the allocation was random but it was fixed. This means that there was a betrayal of trust and participants thought they had killed a man.
     • Alternative interpretations of findings
       • Alex Haslam et al (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when the experimenter delivered the first 3 prods however every participant given the prod "you have no other choice" disobeyed. According to social identity theory participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research
         • Suggests that SIT provides a better interpretation of Milgram's findings.