When we commit the fundamental attribution error in explaining people's behaviour we overestimate the power of personality traits and underestimate the power of social influence. Discuss this statement with reference to Milgram's studies on obedience.

Authors Avatar

When we commit the fundamental attribution error in explaining people’s behaviour we overestimate the power of personality traits and underestimate the power of social influence.  Discuss this statement with reference to Milgram’s studies on obedience.


Milgram (1963) demonstrated that the majority of the subjects in his studies on obedience (65 per cent)  – “average, decent American citizens” (Milgram, 1963. p.5 ) who had volunteered for a Yale University experiment on learning – would administer painful electric shocks up to 450 volts to another volunteer, despite the latter’s protests.  The findings of Milgram’s studies are frequently cited as an example of the power of situational strengths in shaping behaviour and of the tendency to underestimate social influence and instead attribute people’s behaviour to their dispositions or character, i.e. to commit the fundamental attribution error (e.g., Bierbrauer, 1979; Safer, 1980).  With reference to the behaviour of the subjects in Milgram’s studies on obedience this essay critically explores the claim that we commit the fundamental attribution error when we overestimate the power of personality traits and underestimate the power of social influence.  The essay begins by outlining Milgram’s basic procedure.  It then discusses the extent to which Milgram’s findings can be explained in terms of the power of the situation.  Finally, it evaluates the role of personality traits in the behaviour of Milgram’s subjects.

 Milgram’s experiments were arranged such that two subjects arrived at Yale University at around the same time and were greeted by the experimenter, who explained that the purpose of the study is to examine the effects of punishment on learning.  The two subjects then drew slips of paper to determine who would become the ‘teacher’ and who would become the ‘learner’.  In fact, one subject was a confederate of the experimenter, and the draw was rigged such that the naive subject always became the teacher and the confederate became the learner.  In Milgram’s (1963) baseline condition the teacher was required to test the learner’s ability to recognise a series of word pairs and to administer a shock to the learner by pressing a switch on a shock generator each time he made an error.  Furthermore, with each subsequent mistake, the teacher was to increase the shock intensity by 15 volts, beginning with 15 volts up to 450 volts (marked XXX) on the generator.  Milgram’s original study included 40 male participants, but subsequent variations on the original study using females yielded almost identical results (Milgram, 1974).  In addition, cross-cultural replications of Milgram’s studies have shown comparable levels of obedience (e.g. Kilham and Mann, 1974; Meeus and Raajmakers, 1986; Shanab and Yahya, 1978). To investigate the factors underpinning the high levels of obedience obtained in the original study, Milgram carried out a number of variations on the study, and found that varying the situational variables in his experiments altered subjects’ obedience levels.  

One of the first situational variables Milgram (1965) manipulated was the victim’s proximity to the subject, which showed that obedience decreased as the victim became closer.  In the ‘remote-feedback’ condition, the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’ were in adjacent rooms, and 65 per cent of participants administered the highest shock level (with an average shock level of 405 volts).  In the ‘voice-feedback’ condition, the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’ were still in adjacent rooms but the ‘learner’ made it clear that he had a heart condition and voiced his distress by screaming.  This condition saw obedience levels drop only slightly, to 62.5 per cent, and the average shock level fell to 368 volts.  However, in the ‘proximity’ condition, when the teacher and learner were in the same room, and the learner was thus visible as well as audible, obedience levels dropped to 40% and the average shock intensity delivered was 312 volts.  The lowest levels of obedience in the ‘proximity’ conditions were found in the ‘touch-proximity’ condition, when the ‘teacher’ was required to hold the learner’s hand on the shock plate.  In this condition, only 30% of subjects administered the full 450 volts and the average shock level dropped to 269 volts. Therefore, as the distance between the subject and the victim decreased, the subject became increasingly aware of ‘empathic cues’ (Milgram, 1965)  (i.e., screaming, banging on the wall) from the learner and thus of the consequences of his actions.  

Join now!

Similarly, manipulating the physical proximity of the experimenter to the subject produced varying rates of obedience.  In one condition the experimenter sat just a few feet away from the subject and in a second condition he was called away on the pretext of answering a phone call (Milgram, 1965). In this case he gave instructions to the subject by telephone.  In the first condition 65 per cent of subjects were fully obedient.  In the second condition, however, obedience levels dropped dramatically, with only 20.5 per cent of subjects administering the highest shock level.  Interestingly, some subjects continued with the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay