A consideration of the ends justifying the means of Milgram's research into obedience.
A consideration of the ends justifying the means of Milgram's research into obedience.
Milgram (1963)
Stanley Milgram carried out a series of studies in 1963 and 1973 related to obedience to authority. These studies have been viewed as controversial ever since, mainly because of the ethical issues they raise. Although he was able to obtain conclusive results and discover that under certain situational influences anybody might obey orders that went against their conscience; the way in which he carried out his studies was arguably unethical and contributed to the BPS Ethical Principles.
What are the implications of this study?
* That at that time, people were very willing to follow the commands of an authority figure even if that meant harming another person. This did not occur in a time of crisis or war, but in an apparently everyday psychological experiment.
* This research suggests that ordinary people can be instructed to carry out atrocities and they will be likely to follow those instructions, provided that they are given by a legitimate authority figure. This might suggest that the acts of genocide we have witnesses through history may be part of human social behaviour. Perhaps we should be teaching people to challenge authority where they are placed in such a situation.
* The study also has implications for organisations, which require obedience, such as the military. The research implies that leaders should be seen as legitimate authority figures, and that they should position themselves as close to their soldiers as possible, with support from other compliant soldiers.
What methods have been used to investigate obedience/human social behaviour?
* The original study was a lab based experiment
* The conditions were standardised for all the subjects as Mr Wallace's reactions to the shocks were taped, and the authority figure responded in a set way at each new prompt.
* The IV was the presence of the authority figure and the DV was the obedience rate.
The experimenters used a deception to get subjects to act in a natural way. How did social and political issues affect the study at the time?
Milgram's work was inspired by his interest in the behaviour of war criminals at war crimes trials after the WWII. Many of the defendants had argued that they had simply been following orders. Milgram was interested in seeing if this obedience was a German trait, but he never got to Germany because the results of his preliminary research in the USA were so unexpected.
Informed Consent
Milgram's participants were not offered the choice of informed consent, they were told the experiment was being conducted for a different reason, that the hypothesis was to see if people learn better if they are punished when in fact it was to observe obedience in relation to authority. However, it was necessary for Milgram to use this "single blind" method to make the experiment valid, had the participants been aware of the hypothesis they may have exhibited "demand characteristics". Milgram also sought the advice and opinions of forty other psychiatrists before carrying out his studies, though it may have been more judicious to consult a cross section of the general public, the type of people who would make up his participants.
Comment on the generalisability of the finding
* In the original study, the subjects were all male volunteers (self-selected sample) they had been obtained by an advert with a promise of a payment of $4.50 for participation. The study was located in the USA.
* The profile of the sample raises certain questions over generalisability. The results may not generalise to women, to other cultures and to people who were not willing to volunteer. The size of the original sample was 40, which was relatively small, also raising the possibility of unrepresentative ness and therefore a lack of generalisability.
However, it has been criticised for being unethical. The participants believed that they were causing serious harm to the 'victim'. Many suffered symptoms of tension through the experiment. Some suffered full-blown, uncontrollable seizures. And one even had a fit so violent that the experiment had to be cancelled. The experiment has been criticised for lack of ecological validity. Due to it being an artificial test of obedience and therefore lacks 'mundane realism'.
In 1974, Milgram conducted a study to see whether participants would obey an experimenter - a person of authority, when instructed to administer potentially dangerous electric shocks to another person. The "learner" was connected to the shock equipment and asked a series of questions in which wrong answers resulted in a shock given by the participant. No shocks were actually given though, since the learner was a confederate of the experimenter and was pretending to receive the shocks. Obedience rates indicated that 65% of the participants were willing to give a potentially lethal shock to the learner. If ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In 1974, Milgram conducted a study to see whether participants would obey an experimenter - a person of authority, when instructed to administer potentially dangerous electric shocks to another person. The "learner" was connected to the shock equipment and asked a series of questions in which wrong answers resulted in a shock given by the participant. No shocks were actually given though, since the learner was a confederate of the experimenter and was pretending to receive the shocks. Obedience rates indicated that 65% of the participants were willing to give a potentially lethal shock to the learner. If the participants became hesitant of continuing, the experimenter would urge them to carry on, saying "It is absolutely essential that you continue." and the like.
The experimental validity of this experiment is threatened by whether the participants actually believed that the shocks were real. Obviously, the participants would be more inclined to administer the shocks if they knew they were fakes. Video evidence does however suggest that the participants did think the shocks were real since 70% of them said that they believed. This points to high experimental validity. However, participants could have obeyed because it was an experiment and they felt they 'had to' do it. They were also paid and this would give them extra incentive to continue, as well as making the commands more reasonable (they were rewarded) and obedience more likely. These factors decrease the experimental validity of Milgram's research (1974) as the participants had extra encouragement to obey the orders and variables affecting their behaviour (such as feeling as if they 'have to' take part in the experiment). Milgram defended the study by commenting that this was what real life was like.
Deception
Milgram's participants were grossly deceived, they believe that they actually were administrating electric shocks to a randomly chosen learner. In fact the learner was a confederate of Milgram's, Mr.Wallace and he did not receive any electric shocks, he was not even in the room, what the participant believed to be the cries and protests of this man was merely a tape recording. Milgram used many cunning deceptions to make the experiment seem more realistic. He rigged the lot drawing of teacher and learner so it was always Mr. Wallace who was elected the learner, he gave the teacher a test shock so they could understand what the learner was going through, he also led the participant to believe that the learner had a mild heart condition. In-group situations, he used actors to see if the participants would be influenced. He patently lied to them in using the single blind method; they believed they were assisting research to see if the process of learning was alleviated through punishment. Milgram's justification of this fraudulence was that it was necessary for the experiment to appear realistic, had the participants known the truth or discerned it the results would have lost their validity. (Demand characteristics etc.)
Debriefing and Withdrawal
During the experiment when the participant became concerned for the learner's welfare and asked to withdraw, they were strongly discouraged from doing so, Milgram used an authoritative, commanding tone and used similar phrases for each participant, for example," It is absolutely essential that you carry on." After the experiment the participants were reacquainted with the learner and told the true nature of the experiment, humiliating them and subsequently causing them to analyse their personal character, especially if they had gone all the way to 450V they might consider themselves to be immoral and callous or perhaps too submissive. Personally I would be quite angered to have been subjected to such character-damaging material unknowingly. The debriefing came too late, it should have been before the experiment but it was merely a consequence of the deception. Milgram argued that had the participants been readily able to withdraw nothing would have been learnt about defiance or obedience to authority and of course they could not know beforehand for previously stated reasons.
Protection of Participants
Of all the participants, 86% said afterwards that they were happy to have been part of the experiment, however, what about the other 14% among these presumably were the three of forty participants who suffered seizures owing to their role in the experiment. After the participants were reunited with the learner and told the truth this would presumably be deeply humiliating. The nature of the experiment is also potentially psychologically damaging; the participants were put in a very stressful and disturbing situation, in which they believed themselves to be the perpetrator of pain to others. It also scrutinized the individual's morals and personality. All of the participants also received an electrical shock for no other reason than to make the experiment seem more realistic. There was absolutely no way of telling how certain individuals may react or be affected by their participation in the experiment. In Milgram's defence, he did offer counselling after the experiment was conducted and also contacted each of the participants a year later to ensure they were okay. He also sought the opinions, beforehand of forty other psychiatrists. Of the participants, 86% did say that they were happy with their involvement in the experiment.
What does this study tell us about obedience/social behaviour?
Given the limitations of the study
* The most important finding about this study is that people will follow the instructions of an authority figure even though that might mean another person is harmed. Importantly, this does not occur in a war or similar situation, but in a university in peacetime.
* This shows the social power of an authority figure at that time and that people seem to be very obedient.
* The authority figure was seen as a legitimate power as he was apparently a member of a notable university, involved in scientific research.
* The location and the grey lab coat added to the authority.
* It has been suggested that the power of the authority figure, allows us to transfer responsibility for our actions to that person. Milgram said that we become an agent for that person.
* The variations in the research suggest tell us more about the exact nature of obedience.
* The further away or more remote the authority figure was located, the less likely the subjects were to be obedient.
* If the authority figure's commands are supported by the presence of another, obedience is increased.
* If the authority figure's commands are contradicted by the presence of another, obedience falls.
* The study may also tell us about how social norms operate. The obedience levels may have been influenced by the expected requirement (norm) of a volunteer to comply with the needs of the situation they have volunteered for.
Weaknesses
* The study may have lacked ecological validity (realism) as it took place in a lab.
* However, the study was moved to a downtown office. The obedience levels on fell by a small amount as a result of the move.
* The are questions about generalisability
* The results may have not been produced by the authority figure, but by situational factors (experimental demand) and/or social norms.
* The subjects may have really believed that no harm would come to Mr Wallace.
* The study has also been criticised on ethical grounds.
Ethical problems of this research
The most common study in social influence is Milgram's. His study involved participants who had to give electric shocks to what they thought was real humans. Here is where Milgram used deception he lies to his participants. They were also told it was a memory and learning study. So basically they were told the wrong information about the whole study. Milgram had different levels of shocks these ranged from 0 to 450 volts max. When participants were getting to the high shocks some wanted to stop the experiment but Milgram would say to them they had to carry on. BPS clearly states that participants can clearly withdrawal from any experiment whenever they like. Milgram also broke the consent guideline as the participant did not know the true meaning of the experiment but that was hard to do. If Milgram had told them the meaning then the experiment wouldn't have worked. Milgram basically did nothing to minimise the problems of the participant getting mentally or physically hurt during the experiment. He could clearly see the participant go through pain and still didn't stop the study. Three poor participants had full-blown seizures due to the experiment and many suffered stress and had been mentally abused. Milgram didn't even stop the experiment. This broke the protection to participants from harm guideline.
As for the ecological validity of this study, some would say it is not particularly high because the experiment was carried out in a laboratory and not in an everyday (real-life) environment. However, Milgram's obedience study was replicated worldwide and results support high ecological validity. Leonard Bickman, 1974, conducted a similar study to Milgram's but in a more realistic setting. Three experimenters dressed differently, either wearing a sports coat and tie, or milkman's/guard's uniform and they selected random pedestrians in Brooklyn, New York, asking them one of three varying orders. Bickman found that the participants were more likely to obey the experimenter dressed as a guard than the milkman or civilian, supporting Milgram's finding that obedience can be related to the amount of perceived authority and the ecological validity of his study.
Strengths
* The study was a well-controlled experiment with a standardised procedure. And controls of extraneous variables
* The original study well developed through a wide range of variations, which validate the original results and further develop our understanding of obedience.
* The study is supported by a number of other studies where the 'Milgram' method was used. Similar results were found.
The ethical defence of the studies
Milgram did debrief the participants fully and had interviews and questionnaires after the experiment to minimise problems that could happen later on. Milgram also showed the participant the naïve participant to show he wasn't hurt. 84% of the participants had no regrets of taking part.
Zimbardo could see the problems of his participants getting stressed and mistreated so he stopped his study after six days instead of two weeks. He fully debriefed his participants just like Milgram. The stress and harm to participant were more severe than expected.
Sherdian and Kings study the puppies were getting physically hurt and they didn't even stop it even when it was at the maximum shock. Participants were crying and they still gave the puppy the shocks. The experimenters didn't stop the study they just carried on unlike Zimbardo.
The Scientific Justification for the Studies
Milgram's study was worth doing as it told us how obedient humans are; even Milgram was surprised with his findings. It also tells us how much harm humans can cause to other human beings. This study doesn't really have ecological validity, as you can't put it to a real life setting. You could say it was like Hitler given orders to the Germans in World War 2 and the problems were foreseeable as many humans died. In the future this might be the case of some social influence, humans might go a bit to far. It also lacked experimental realism.
Zimbardo study tells us that when people have uniform on they are looked up to and people obey them like in this case the prisoners obeyed the guards. It also shows us how badly humans can treat other humans just like Milgram's. This study has high ecological validity as it can be related to real life prisons. This study was worth doing as you can see that the guards treated the prisoners really badly. The prisoners obeyed the guards, but the guards were too harsh and went to far.
The ethical justification for the studies
Milgram's results can't really help people it just tells us how humans react to obedience. Some people can resist obedience though by telling people about blind obedience so they are aware, questioning authority and seeing people who are disobedient according to Milgram.
As Zimbardo's study went on the participants became more into their roles. This study shows the power of pressure to conform in social life. After the study the prisons in America were improved.
Sherifs and Asch experiments can be helped to tell that people conform to a group norm.
Sheridan and Kings study found that women obey orders just as much as men do when it comes to giving pain. That there is no gender differences when it comes to obedience.
Evaluation
As you can see many of the studies break the BPS guidelines e.g. Milgram broke deception, consent and protection of the participant. I have come to a conclusion that the research into social influence should be banned. Many of the participants went through mental hell and sometimes-physical hell like 3 people in Milgram's study having full-blown seizures. Would you like to be one of these participants? Well I certainly wouldn't. Every human is equal so I don't think we should put participants through things that aren't necessary even with animals like Sheridan's and Kings experiments. Why did they need to experiment on innocent puppies?
Some of the studies e.g. Milgram's told us that humans still obey even if they are mentally and physically hurt other humans but Milgram is doing exactly the same to the participant. Milgram is obeying to find out how people obey and he is given harm to the participant it self.
The studies I have mentioned have already broke most of the BPS guidelines and studies nowadays wouldn't be allowed to happen. The studies are in the past and have already done damaged. To stop damaged and protection to the participants I think we should stop them all together and have no ethical problems occurring in the future.
The past has already found information about social influence and its not that we don't know anything about it now and most of it of the information has been found.
However these studies were worth doing as we do have evidence on how people obey and conform.
Milgram's work showed the level of punishment on learning. Proposed that a person obeys when they "comply with authority". His subjects were led to believe that the experiment was investigating the effects of punishment on learning. He obtained a level of obedience of 65% of the subjects continued to the maximum shock level of 450 volts. None of the subjects stopped before 300 volts.
It is valuable because Milgram's findings suggest that significant numbers of ordinary people were prepared to obey orders that could do others serious harm. Milgram discovered that different types of people have different obedience rates. Participants with a military background tended to be more obedient, and participants who had gone onto higher education were less obedient.
Mary Beardshaw and Rachel Sumner