In 1974, Milgram conducted a study to see whether participants would obey an experimenter - a person of authority, when instructed to administer potentially dangerous electric shocks to another person. The “learner” was connected to the shock equipment and asked a series of questions in which wrong answers resulted in a shock given by the participant. No shocks were actually given though, since the learner was a confederate of the experimenter and was pretending to receive the shocks. Obedience rates indicated that 65% of the participants were willing to give a potentially lethal shock to the learner. If the participants became hesitant of continuing, the experimenter would urge them to carry on, saying “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” and the like.
The experimental validity of this experiment is threatened by whether the participants actually believed that the shocks were real. Obviously, the participants would be more inclined to administer the shocks if they knew they were fakes. Video evidence does however suggest that the participants did think the shocks were real since 70% of them said that they believed. This points to high experimental validity. However, participants could have obeyed because it was an experiment and they felt they ‘had to’ do it. They were also paid and this would give them extra incentive to continue, as well as making the commands more reasonable (they were rewarded) and obedience more likely. These factors decrease the experimental validity of Milgram’s research (1974) as the participants had extra encouragement to obey the orders and variables affecting their behaviour (such as feeling as if they ‘have to’ take part in the experiment). Milgram defended the study by commenting that this was what real life was like.
As for the ecological validity of this study, some would say it is not particularly high because the experiment was carried out in a laboratory and not in an everyday (real-life) environment. However, Milgram’s obedience study was replicated world wide and results support high ecological validity. Leonard Bickman, 1974, conducted a similar study to Milgram’s but in a more realistic setting. Three experimenters dressed differently, either wearing a sports coat and tie, or milkman’s/guard’s uniform and they selected random pedestrians in Brooklyn, New York, asking them one of three varying orders. Bickman found that the participants were more likely to obey the experimenter dressed as a guard than the milkman or civilian, supporting Milgram’s finding that obedience can be related to the amount of perceived authority and the ecological validity of his study.
Nonetheless, it is important to account for the differences of the studies by Milgram and Bickman because the obedience, although both to authority figures, was a result of different instructions. Bickman ordered for participants to pick up a bag, or give someone a dime, whereas Milgram was urging for them to administer a potentially fatal electric shock to another person. Hence it could be said that the Bickman’s supporting evidence was a result of increased reasonableness of the commands.
Hofling et al. in 1966, implemented a study of obedience before Milgram in which 22 nurses were phoned by “Dr. Smith” asking them to administer a 20mg dose of the drug Astrogen. The nurses had previously been asked, by the “Dr. Smith”, to check this drug and they saw that the maximum dosage was 10mg. To administer a dose over the maximum would break the rules, as would the fact that the nurses received no written authority and had no reason to believe “Dr. Smith” was even a real doctor. Shockingly, 21 of the 22 nurses in the study obeyed “Dr. Smith” and were willing to give the 20mg dose of Astrogen.
The ecological validity of this experiment was undeniably high since the findings would directly generalise with everyday situations, especially as the study was conducted in the primary environment that the situation would be found in. It was a real-life experiment.
Situations with similar authority figures could include a policeman ordering a citizen to break the law, since the citizen would recognise the authority of the policeman and would probably agree to their orders, despite the implications of doing so. The nurses in Hofling’s study recognised that the dosage they were told to administer was above the maximum, but because the doctor has more knowledge of medicine and a sense of authority over the nurses, they obeyed. Thus the commands of the doctor, in spite of breaking rules, seemed more reasonable to the nurses.
As for the experimental validity of Hofling’s study, the nurses never questioned the authenticity of the Dr. Smith, thus indicating that they believed he was a real doctor and behaved as they would in a non-experimental situation. This would indicate high experimental validity, however, replications of Hofling’s study by Rank and Jacobsen (1977) for example, have failed.
