The teacher was then sat in front of the fake shock machine, which was calibrated in 15 volt increments going from 15 to 450 volts. The increments were grouped in 4’s and had written words above them going from ‘Slight shock’ to the final switches that were labelled ‘Danger XXX’. The Researcher remained in the same room as the Teacher.
The learner had to repeat pairs of words that he was supposed to have remembered. If an incorrect answer was given, an electric shock was administered by the teacher. With each wrong answer the teacher was instructed to move up a switch on the shock machine. Each time the shock was administered the learner would protest verbally by crying out in pain or asking for the experiment to stop.
If the teacher expressed a reluctance to carry on after hearing the learners’ reaction, the researcher prompted him with a standardised set of prompts i.e. “The experiment requires that you continue”. If the teacher did not continue after four prompts the experiment was terminated.
Findings
The question the researchers wanted to answer, was just how far would people proceed with the shocks, would ordinary people actually go as far as the ‘Danger XXX’ level?
The findings of the experiment were very alarming.
Milgram consulted fellow Psychologists before carrying out the experiment who predicted that only one person in 1000 would be prepared to carry on up to 450 volts.
The actual results showed that 26 of the 40 volunteers were prepared to administer a shock of 450v and everyone continued to shock up to at least 300v. This showed that most people are prepared to obey an authority figure, even when he/she makes unreasonable demands upon them.
The 26 however that continued to the end of the experiment showed signs of stress and discomfort. They were not told before that the experiment would cause distress, and this could be deemed as unethical. The experimenter has a responsibility to ensure that the participants are protected both physically and mentally during the investigation.
The participants were deceived over the purpose of the experiment, and they where not asked for formal consent. The participants’ decision to continue may also have been influenced by the fact that they were paid for their time up front and because of this almost felt obliged to carry on. The experimenter also told the volunteers that they had to remain in the experiment and could not freely leave at any time.
One of the main criticisms of the experiment is that people were deceived about its true purpose. In today’s climate it would be impossible to carry out experiments that involve this degree of deception and psychological strain on the part of the participants. The participants’ knew that the experiment was being carried out at the prestigious Yale University and therefore assumed that nothing harmful could happen. The participants were not debriefed until after the experiment had been completed.
It could be argued that there is little ecological validity to the data because it does not reflect real life situations. However, an experiment carried out by Hofling et al (1966) showed that 21 out of 22 nurses working in a hospital were willing to administer an incorrect dose of medicine to a patient, purely on instructions given by a bogus doctor over the telephone.
The Milgram experiment is weak in that only male volunteers were used and it does not reflect what would happen in a group situation where it is more likely that authority would be questioned. We could also argue that results are not valid because the participants second guessed what was happening and knew that they were not actually administering the shocks.
Conclusion
The majority of people are willing to comply with the demands of an authority figure even if the demands are unreasonable.
In both experiments, Milgram and Hofling, the levels of obedience were very high in both in laboratory conditions and in a real life scenario. An explanation to this is called the ‘agentic state’ where the participant becomes an instrument of an authority figure and denies responsibility for their actions, because they were ordered to carry out their actions. This allows the participants to shift their feelings of responsibility onto the higher authority i.e. the researcher, although in some cases people manage to resist the pressures to obey and side with their conscience when what they are being to do is wrong.
Bibliography
Highbury College Handouts provided by Josie Quinn, 2006.
Eysenck, MW (2000). Psychology – A Students Handbook. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.