The research involved three key people, an actual volunteer who would become the teacher, a fake volunteer who would become the learner and a fake scientist who would become the figure of authority. However the real volunteer did not know that the other subject and the scientist were impostors.
To make the experiment seem as genuine as possible, the subjects were taken to a laboratory in Yale University where they were introduced to the supposed scientist. He then explained that the experiment was about punishment and learning and instructed the volunteers to decide who would become the ‘learner’ and who the ‘teacher’ by ‘drawing lots’. However, this was already fixed to allow for the real subject to become the ‘teacher’ and the fake subject to become the ‘learner’. The subject is then briefed on his role as ‘teacher’ which involves punishing the ‘learner’ with electric shocks each time he makes a mistake whilst completing a ‘paired-associate learning’ task. The subject is shown the ‘shock box’ which is an impressive looking piece of equipment with various switches numbered 15 to 450 volts. The switches are also accompanied with labels, for example ‘minor shock’ through to ‘XXX’ as to totally convince the volunteer of the severity of the shocks. Another factor which made the shocks appear believable was the moans and screams from the ‘learner’ in an adjoining room.
The basis of the experiment was find out the highest voltage people are willing to inflict upon the ‘learner’ when an authority figure is present and encouraging them to continue. The findings showed that 62% of subjects (cited in, The Social psychology of Psychological Research, Miller, 1972) gave the full 450 volts despite hearing banging and cries of pain from the next room. The subjects themselves were not unaffected. They showed signs of disturbance throughout the experiment which included sweating, groaning etc. This indicates that they were not enjoying the experience in any way and it was not their particular personality type which made them submissive.
Similarly, Milgram believed that obedience had little to do with personality, and that it is society which produces compliance to authority. He believed that obedience is something which is introduced to us from childhood and remains with us throughout adulthood. Basically we are used to understanding authority as meaning good and disobedience as meaning bad. Milgram reasoned that this could mean that the level to which subjects gave shocks in the experiment could be controlled by enabling them to emotionally block out their own responsibility in the task. To demonstrate this Milgram repeated his experiment but varied it in such a way that the participant was no longer actively pressing switches which administer shocks but instead, recording data. Although the subject’s position was still vital to the person who was pressing the switches, it was the changing of the roles which lead to the volunteer developing a psychological distance between themselves and the ‘learner’ which made the orders much easier to obey. The findings seemed to back this up completely. More than 90% of subjects gave the highest voltage of shock, (cited in Psychology, fifth edition [Norton], 1999). This suggests that we are more able to be obedient when we can convince ourselves that we are not responsible for the action in which we are carrying out and transfer all blame onto the figure of authority.
Milgram’s experiment also showed that participants were able to disassociate themselves from the actual act in which they are carrying out (which, in effect is inflicting quite severe pain on another human being) and concentrate on the task which they were being told to do (pressing switches). They may presume that since they have initially agreed to do the experiment they have to carry it out and consequently focus on the task itself rather than the implications of what that task might actually have on the other person. As one of the volunteers of the experiment said, “You really begin to forget that there’s a guy out there, even though you can hear him. For a long time I just concentrated on pressing the switches”, (Milgram, 1974, P38, cited in Psychology 5th edition [Norton] 1999).
Even if subjects were fully aware of the ‘learner’ they may completely trust the authority figure and genuinely believe that he would not allow them to carry on if the experiment was dangerous. This applies more if the participant already believes that the experiment is in the interests of science. However one could question why volunteers favour the interests of science over the interests of a fellow human being. The controlling presence of the ‘scientist’ becomes apparent here. The fact that the ‘learner’ is not in the same room could cause the ‘teacher’ to connect with the authority figure rather than the person that he is punishing.
Consequently, when subjects turned to the authority figure for guidance, he would give a sequence of prompts to encourage the volunteer to go on. Milgram conducted his experiment in such a way that the participants began to lose a sense of accountability for their actions. The ‘sliding scale’ which the experiment adopted, caused the subjects to become unaware of the intensity of shock voltage that they had given. This was because each voltage was just 15 volts more than the last and involved a series of stages to get from 15 to 450 (cited in psychology, fifth edition [Norton] 1999). These stages were designed to gradually get people used to pressing the switches. Interestingly, the sliding scale is also used in military training.
Milgram’s experiment was seen as a breakthrough in social psychology, mainly because it illustrates just how influential situational factors are in relation to obedience. His research allows us to identify key influences to obedience. One of which would be the subject’s projection of guilt or blame onto the figure of authority thus enabling them to detach themselves from the victim and concentrate on completing the ‘job’ they have been told to do. Milgram also demonstrated how cultural constraints are unknowingly built into us from childhood and act as controls to signify that all authority is ‘good’ and all defiance of authority is ‘bad’. Furthermore, subjects prove to be more likely to obey when in an administrative role despite the fact that they are still controlling when the shocks are given. Again, they were more able convince themselves that their part in the punishment was limited.
Before these experiments were carried out it was widely assumed that a person’s social circumstances had little to do with how they would react when instructed to punish another person. It was thought that it was their personality which would determine how far they would obey. This idea is known as the ‘fundamental attribution error’. However Milgram’s findings crushed this theory. He varied the experiment in as many ways as possible as to eliminate any possibility of personality dominating the findings. The end results proved to be vital to social psychology. They not only highlighted the fact that moral human beings will ignore conscience and commit acts of violence when instructed to by someone in a position of authority but they confirm that social factors directly affect our behaviour.