Milgram, Hoffling and Zimbardo. Critically Consider the Psychological Factors Influencing Obedience to Authority Using Empirical Evidence to Support your Answe
by
diesktikus (student)
Luke Schol
Critically Consider the Psychological Factors Influencing Obedience to Authority Using Empirical Evidence to Support your Answer
Milgram
Aim: Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities for example, Germans in WWII.
Procedure: Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional (GROSS, R. 1999). They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment but importantly they were told that the payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, regardless of what happened after they arrived (Milgram. S 1963). At the beginning of the experiment they were introduced to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram). They drew straws to determine their roles – leaner or teacher – although this was fixed and the confederate always ended to the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a white lab coat, played by an actor. The learner (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair in another room with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the teacher tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices. The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock). The learner gave mainly wrong answers on purpose and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock and turned to the experimenter for guidance, he was given one of four standard responses indicating that it was essential for continuation. To improve the authenticity of the phoney shock generator written labels were also clearly indicated with the shock severity with the last two switches marked XXX.
Results: All 40 of the participants obeyed up to 300 volts at which point 5 refused to continue. A total of 14 participants defied the experimenter, and 26 obeyed. Overall, 65% of the participants gave shocks up to 450 volts (obeyed) and 35% stopped sometime before 450 volts. With few exceptions, participants were convinced of the reality of the situation. In the post-experimental interview participants were asked: ‘How painful to the learner were the last few shocks you administered to him?’ On a printed 14-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all painful’) to 14 (‘extremely painful’), the mean was 13.42. (Milgram. S 1963)
Evaluation: Participants were deceived as to the nature of the study and made to believe they were administering real electric shocks to a real participant. These factors have some ethical issues. However, Milgram could not have found ecological results if he had not deceived his participants. The experiment was also biased as it was only men who participated. A main strength of the experiment was the amount of control that was able to be administered. For example, participants believed they were being randomly assigned to either the teacher or learner, they believed they were actually administering electric shocks, had the same responses from the same experimenter and so on. In terms of the right to withdraw, it was good that Milgram stated at the start that the money paid to the participants was theirs regardless of whether they continued with the experiment. However, during the experiment the responses given by the experimenters suggested that withdrawal was not possible and being paid would have increased the participant’s sense of obligation. This is also ethically incorrect. The fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University lent the study and procedure credibility and respect. This would have increased the chances of the participants obeying the experimenter as it adds a professional aspect to it. The participant believed that the experiment was for a worthy purpose - to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes again, adding to the professionalism which may have encouraged the participants to obey. For example in a variation to his experiment Milgram altered the location to a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this setting the obedience rate was 47.5%, suggesting that the original location had played some part, but it was not a crucial factor. The participants were asked to administer the shock whist they were on their own, if they were in proximity of a friend or colleague they may have been more likely to disobey.
