The learner had to learn a list of word pairs and communicate the correct answer to the teacher. Every time the learner got an incorrect answer the teacher had to administer an electric shock with a shock generator. The shock generator was not real but played an important role in the experiment. The generator had a series of switches on it corresponding to a voltage and also a description of the voltage. The voltages went up in increments of 15V up to a maximum of 450 volts. The voltage descriptions started at ‘slight’ and went up to ‘XXX’. The learner gave increasingly more alarming reactions, up to screams and then even silence, as the teacher went up the scale on the shock generator. No shocks were actually given to the learner when an incorrect answer was given.
The participants were told that they could withdraw at any time and all of them had received their participation fee before the experiment to begin so as they were not bound by financial obligation. Pressure was put upon participants, by the experimenter in a white coat, who wanted to withdraw. Their requests to stop were met with scripted responses from the experimenter starting with a gentle ‘please continue’ up a scale to the harshest ‘you have no choice, you must go on’.
Obedience rates were high. 65% of participants gave a potentially harmful shock to the learner. The participants were continuing to obey the experimenter in a white coat; the authority figure. The experiment was carried out cross culturally with many similar levels of obedience. Milgram also carried out the experiment with female participants obtaining similar results to the male participants.
A major criticism of Milgram’s studies was that he was deceiving participants. Deception raises ethical issues because it prevents participants from being able to give fully informed consent. Milgram deceived all of the participants by telling them that the experiment was about the effect of punishment on learning, instead of obedience. The participants were also deceived into thinking that they were actually giving the learner electric shocks. Participants did volunteer for the experiment but they were deceived into what the experiment was actually exploring. However, the experiment would not have had the same effects if the participants were fully briefed on the nature of the experiment. Also, the participants were not given a choice to decide if they wanted to continue with the true experiment.
Baumrind (1964), cited in Hayes, criticised Milgram’s experiment stating that the levels of distress and pressure felt by the participants caused unjustifiable psychological damage. On the other hand, Milgram did show concern for his participants. After each participant had taken part in the experiment they were debriefed by Milgram to make sure no psychological damage was caused. In addition, the participants were introduced to their learner after the experiment so as they could see for themselves that no harm was actually done by them. Again though, Baumrind questions the acceptability of taking risks with participant’s future well-being. In terms of long term damage, was enough counselling provided to counterbalance any trauma sustained?
Milgram’s major defence to the experiment was that no one could have predicted the outcome of the experiment. Moreover, this claim is backed up by the survey that was carried out prior to the actual experiment where levels of obedience were predicted at 3%. Milgram tried to limit any damage that the experiment might have caused by debriefing and following up on the participants. In a survey of the participants after the experiment over 80% of them were “glad” or “very glad” to have participated and thought that more similar research should continue. Just over 1% were “sorry” or “very sorry” to have participated.
The levels of obedience that Milgram’s experiments produced were due to many factors that were explored further with over 18 variations of Milgram’s original experiment. The distressing levels of anxiety that some of the original participants felt did nothing to stop the later variations from being carried out. The experiment variations were to explore the reasons for the obedience and included changing the setting, altering the proximity of experimenter and learner and also communicating over the telephone.
Although participants were physically allowed to leave the experiment they were socially pressured to stay causing personal distress and anxiety. This is deemed as unethical but the method and deception in the experiment were necessary to gain the effects of authority on obedience.
Word Count
1030 words (excluding references, headers and title).
References
Hayes, N. (1994). Foundations of Psychology.
St Ives: Routledge
