In truth nobody was being electrocuted. A tape recorder with screams that were already recorded was hooked up to play each time the teacher administered a shock. When the shocks got to a higher voltage, the actor (learner) would bang on the wall and ask the teacher to stop. Eventually all screams and banging would stop and silence would ensue. This was the point when many of the teachers exhibited extreme distress and would ask to stop the experiment. Some questioned the experiment, but many were encouraged to go on and told they would not be responsible for any results.
One major issue with the Milgram experiment was the consent. When the experiment was advertised by Milgram, it was done so in a local newspaper, asking for anybody from factory workers to barbers. It offered to pay people $4.00 an hour which I do believe plays a important role, I will later discuss. The age limit was between 20 and 50 years. In the advertisement it was said that the purpose of this study is to test the memory and learning of people. Nowhere in the advertisement did it mention the use of electric shock and how dangerous this could be for the “learner”. This is considered deception. According to the BPS Ethics “The idea of deceiving the participants in ones research is seen as quite inappropriate.” The idea of Milgram deceiving his participants was to not affect his results. He knew if the participants knew what was actually going on in this experiment there behaviour could have changed and results would differ, so he could not tell them the true aim. Because of people filling out the form and sending it, Milgram had gained there consent for the experiment, but it was not informed because they did not know what was actually going on in the experiment. I do believe if deception was not used, the amount of participants may have been reduced thus affecting the consent.
Another main ethical issue is the right to withdraw from the experiment. According to the BPS guidelines, it says “At the onset of the investigation investigators should make plain to participants their right to withdraw from the research at any time, irrespective of whether or not payment or other inducement has been offered.”
When participants heard the screams of the learner, if they decided they did not want to continue, the man in the lab coat (authority) would say to them one of four things.
“Please continue,” “The experiment requires that you continue,” “It is absolutely essential that you continue,” “You have no other choice, you must go on” (Milgram, Stanley (1963). ). Because of these sayings, it gave no right to withdraw. If any of the volunteers felt as if they couldn’t continue because they felt that if they were to kill the person they would be held responsible, the examiner would reply “its my responsibility if anything happens to him” (1974, Milgram, cited - Obedience and Civilization, Mixon).. This may have relived a lot of pressure from the volunteers but nevertheless they all showed signs of distress, not being able to cope with having the death or severe injury of another human being on there conscious. I also believe strongly that there was a money issue involved. A lot of people would continue just to get the money they were working for. If they were to stop, there would be an issue of whether they get there money or not. I think that because of this some people decided to continue with the experiment. According to Milgram, the participants had all the right to withdraw from the experiment. They would just refuse to continue.
According to the BPS guidelines “Investigators have a primary responsibility to protect participants from physical and mental harm during the investigation. Participants should be informed of procedures for contacting the investigator within a reasonable time period following participation should stress, potential harm, or related questions or concern arise despite the precautions required by the Principles. Where research procedures might result in undesirable consequences for participants, the investigator has the responsibility to detect and remove or correct these consequences.”
Milgram did not protect his participants. They clearly showed signs of distress by making them believe they were actually hurting someone. There was a huge amount of anxiety being shown, in one case a woman participant actually bit her own nails down to where she started to bleed. This is horrific in terms of protection and severe stress. There was also nervous laughter and unsettling movement. After the experiment Milgram debriefed his participants. He told them the true aim of the experiment, he did therefore ask and gained there consent. Finally asked them to fill out a questionnaire and weeks later checked up on them to make sure they were ok. Follow-up questionnaires revealed that only 1% regretted taking part, and showed no alienation from psychological research.
For a start, this study had some serious ethical problems. A way in which he could have improved this experiment, concerning the consent of the participants is by apart from examining the effects of punishment on learning, the experiment would also have some other aim in which could not yet be revealed. This way they are aware that there is something else that is being examined but for the results sake cannot be revealed until after the experiment. In reality, this way I don’t believe the results would change majorly and the main fact of consent would be deemed because the participants are aware there is more going on than what meets the eye. Aslong as they are fully debriefed after so they know what they are aware of what the aim was that couldn’t be revealed.
People were repeatedly denied the chance to leave the study. This issue should have had the experiment terminated straight away. This could have affected the participants negatively in later life, as well as making them stressed at the time. There are multiple ways in which Milgram could have addressed this issue. The only problem is again, because the true aim of the experiment was to do with obedience to authority, if people were told they were allowed to leave or if they did not want to continue, this would definitely affect the results. So I believe if he was to tell his participants that there was no pressure to continue, it would have been a more sensible way to address this ethical issue but he may not have got the same results. In my opinion I would say the best thing to do would be to still have the authority figure there but ask them if they wanted to continue. That way it gives the participant a chance to leave if the distress is too much for them. Incorporated into this could be the protection of participants. If the participant was shown signs of distress or clear signs of nervousness, the authority figure would ask if they want to continue. This way its stopping the trauma getting worse and participants don’t feel obliged to continue.
In conclusion, since young everyone has always listened and been obedient to a figure of authority. Whether that means a child to a parent, or a citizen to the law. Our brains are always going to be programmed to abide by authority. When we talk about the Milgram experiment, we forget that these results also surprised Milgram as well as the general public. Because of this, Milgram did not expect the behaviour and distress that was shown in the experiment “When I posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in the study delivered the maximum shocks.” Miller, Arthur G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science.
Bibliography – not sure bout this part
Mcleod, S (2007) Simply Psychology; Milgram, retrieved 8th November 2011, from
Milgram, S (1965). ‘Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority’, Human Relations, 18, pp. 57-76
Milgram, S (1963). ‘The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology’, Behavioural Study of Obedience, 67(4), pp. 371-378.
The British Psychological Society (2005) Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles & Guidelines, Ethical principles for conducting research with human participants, 6.1
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (1978) Institutional Review Board Guidebook, The Belmont Report, retrieved 8th November 2011, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_introduction.htm
