Milgram’s (1963) study: a situational explanation of obedience
- Stanley Milgram is one of the most well-known psychology researchers worldwide due to this groundbreaking study on obedience
- Milgram’s initial hypothesis was that Germans must be different to all other nations due to their involvement in the Holocaust, which is a dispositional approach as it assumes that obedience is the result of personality factors rather than situational factors
- To test his ‘Germans are different’ theory Milgram conducted the following experiment:
- A sample of 40 males aged 20-50 years old from a variety of different backgrounds was obtained via volunteer sampling (leaflets and newspaper ads), they were paid $4.50 for their time
- Each participant was allocated the role of ‘Teacher’ seemingly at random (the experiment was set up so that the participant was always ‘Teacher’)
- The participant met ‘Mr Wallace’ who was a confederate of Milgram’s - the participant assumed ‘Mr Wallace’ was another participant - he was in the role of ‘Learner’
- The Learner was strapped into a chair and attached to electrodes; the Teacher was shown this contraption before the procedure started
- The Teacher, in another room, gave the Learner a trigger word which was matched with a word that the Learner had (supposedly) memorised: the Learner then pressed a button to indicate their answer
Milgram's obedience study diagram
Milgram (1963): E = Experimenter; T = Teacher; L = Learner.
-
- If the Learner got an answer wrong the Teacher had to issue an electric shock to them via a shock generator which went from 15 volts to 450 volts (a lethal dose)
- Throughout the procedure there was an experimenter present who provided prompts if the Teacher seemed reluctant to go any further e.g. ‘The experiment requires that you continue’
- The Learner appeared to be making noises indicating pain which the Teacher could hear e.g. ‘Get me out of here! Oh, that hurts!’
- The dependent variable was measured as the number of participants who went up to 450 volts plus the behavioural responses of the participants were also noted e.g. shaking, crying, some even had a seizure
- 65% of participants went up to 450 volts
- 100% of participants went up to 300 volts
- Milgram abandoned his dispositional hypothesis as his results showed that destructive obedience is not a result of nationality or personal factors but is instead made possible by specific situational factors
- The situational factors which contributed to the participants’ high levels of obedience were:
- The experiment taking place at high-status Yale University i.e. it was ‘important’
- The prompts were given by the experimenter who was wearing a lab coat (authority figure)
- The fact that the participants had volunteered to take part and had been paid a small sum for doing so
- The feeling that the situation was out of their hands and they were ‘just obeying orders’ (agency theory)
- The situational factors which contributed to the participants’ high levels of obedience were:
Milgram's electric shock generator diagram
The shock generator with the levels of shock is clearly shown.
Exam Tip
A common error that students make in exams is to write about the wrong theory/study in an exam:
- One Social Influence question asked candidates to ‘describe and evaluate Adorno’s theory’ yet many students mistakenly used Milgram’s theory and study in their response (resulting in 0 marks for this question).
You might want to create a grid detailing the topic, theory, and study, then display it on a wall in your house so that you don’t become muddled in the exam.
Evaluation of Milgram’s study of obedience
Strengths
- Milgram’s study was shocking (pardon the pun) in that it shed valuable light on how very ordinary people can be led to perform acts of extreme harm to complete strangers
- Milgram’s findings have been supported by subsequent research e.g. Sheridan & King (1972)
Weaknesses
- There is some question as to the validity of Milgram’s study as it is possible that some of the participants realised that the shocks were fake
- There are real ethical concerns with Milgram’s study as the damage done to the participants was quite severe - even when they were told that the shocks were fake they would still have to live with the knowledge that they thought they had been harming another human
Worked example
Here is an example of a question you might be asked on this topic - for AO2.
AO1: You need to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of key concepts, ideas, theories and research.
AO2: You need to apply your knowledge and understanding, usually referring to the ‘stem’ in order to do so (the stem is the example given before the question)
AO3: You need to analyse and evaluate key concepts, ideas, theories and research.
After each featured question there is a ‘model’ answer i.e. one which would achieve top marks in the exam.
Question: Identify two ethical issues that are relevant to the study of obedience. Explain why each issue you have identified is important in the study of obedience. [4]
AO2 = 4 marks
Model answer:
Possible ethical issues:
- Protection from harm
- Right to withdraw
Why each issue is important:
Protection from harm is an important ethical issue to consider:
- Because if you are asking participants to put themselves in a position in which they may have to behave against their true wishes or beliefs then they may feel upset, distressed, embarrassed etc.
- Milgram’s (1963) participants may not have wanted to obey the prompts to continue but may have done so as they felt pressured i.e. they were harmed.
Right to withdraw is an important ethical issue to consider:
- Because it gives participants an ‘escape route’ from any procedure/task that they find unpleasant or distressing.
- Milgram’s participants should have been given a clear right to withdraw so that they did not feel bad about disobeying the ‘experimenter’.
