Introduction to Milgram (1963) and His Variation Studies

Have you ever wondered why people follow orders, even when they know what they are doing is wrong? This was the question that drove Stanley Milgram to conduct one of the most famous (and controversial) studies in the history of Psychology. Milgram wanted to understand how the atrocities of the Holocaust could have happened. Were the people involved just "following orders"?

In this chapter, we will explore Milgram’s original 1963 study and three of his important variations. These studies are a key part of Social Psychology because they show how the situation we are in—rather than just our personality—influences whether we obey or dissent (resist) authority.

The Classic Study: Milgram (1963)

Aim: To investigate the level of obedience shown when an authority figure orders a participant to administer electric shocks to another person.

The Procedure

Milgram recruited \(40\) male participants between the ages of \(20\) and \(50\) through a newspaper advertisement. This is called a volunteer sample. The study took place at the prestigious Yale University.

1. Participants were told the study was about "memory and learning."
2. They were introduced to a man they thought was another participant (but he was actually a confederate—someone working for Milgram).
3. They "drew straws" to decide who would be the Teacher and who would be the Learner. This was rigged so the real participant was always the Teacher.
4. The Learner was strapped into a chair in another room. The Teacher was sat in front of a shock generator with switches ranging from \(15V\) (slight shock) to \(450V\) (labeled "XXX").
5. The Teacher had to give the Learner a word-pair task. Every time the Learner got an answer wrong, the Teacher had to give him an electric shock, increasing the voltage each time.

Note: No real shocks were ever given! The Learner’s screams were pre-recorded recordings.

If the Teacher hesitated, the Experimenter (an authority figure in a grey lab coat) used four standard prods, such as: "The experiment requires that you continue" or "You have no other choice, you must go on."

The Findings

Before the study, Milgram asked students and psychiatrists to predict the results. They thought only \(1\%\) to \(3\%\) would go all the way to \(450V\). They were wrong!

  • \(100\%\) of participants continued to at least \(300V\).
  • \(65\%\) (two-thirds) of participants went all the way to the maximum \(450V\).
  • Many participants showed signs of extreme stress: they sweated, trembled, stuttered, and some even had "nervous laughing fits."

Conclusion

Milgram concluded that situational factors are incredibly powerful. People will obey an authority figure even if it means harming an innocent person. They aren't necessarily "evil"; they are trapped in a situation that makes it hard to say no.

Quick Review: The \(65\%\) Rule

Don't worry if these numbers seem shocking—that's why the study is famous! Just remember that more than half of the "ordinary" men in the study obeyed orders to give a potentially fatal shock.

Evaluating the 1963 Study

To do well in your exam, you need to be able to "critically analyse" the research using these specific terms:

  • Generalisability: This was low. Milgram only used males from the local area. Can we really say women or people from different cultures would act the same way?
  • Reliability: This was high. The procedure was highly standardised (the same prods, the same recorded screams, the same setting). This means the study can be repeated to check if the results are consistent.
  • Validity:
    • Ecological Validity: This was low. Giving electric shocks for wrong answers in a lab is not an everyday task.
    • Internal Validity: Some researchers argued participants didn't really believe the shocks were real (though Milgram's footage of their stressed reactions suggests they did).
  • Ethics: This is a major issue. Under the BPS Code of Ethics (2009), Milgram failed several standards:
    • Deception: He lied about the aim and the shocks.
    • Protection from Harm: Participants were under huge psychological stress.
    • Right to Withdraw: The "prods" made it feel like they couldn't stop.

Milgram’s Variation Studies

Milgram didn't stop at one study. He changed the "situation" to see what would make people dissent (refuse to obey). You need to know these three specific variations:

1. Experiment 7: Telephonic Instructions (Proximity)

In this version, the Experimenter gave the initial instructions and then left the room. He gave all further orders over the telephone.

  • Result: Obedience dropped to \(22.5\%\).
  • Takeaway: When the authority figure is physically distant, it is much easier for people to resist and dissent. Some participants even "lied" over the phone, saying they were increasing the shocks when they were actually giving the lowest level!

2. Experiment 10: Rundown Office Block (Setting)

The original study was at Yale (a very prestigious university). In this variation, Milgram moved the study to a shabby, rundown office in a town called Bridgeport. He told participants the study was being done by a private research firm.

  • Result: Obedience dropped to \(48\%\).
  • Takeaway: The "status" of the location matters. A prestigious setting like Yale provides a sense of legitimacy. When the setting looks "dodgy" or less official, people are more likely to question the authority.

3. Experiment 13: Ordinary Man Gives Orders (Authority)

In this version, the "Experimenter" (in his lab coat) left the room after giving the instructions. An "ordinary man" (another confederate in plain clothes) suggested that they should increase the shocks every time the learner got a wrong answer.

  • Result: Obedience dropped to \(20\%\).
  • Takeaway: We are much more likely to obey someone we perceive as having legitimate authority (like someone in a uniform or lab coat). When an "ordinary" person gives orders, we feel more able to say no.

Factors Affecting Obedience and Dissent

From these studies, we can identify specific Situational Factors that encourage people to either obey or resist:

1. Proximity: How close is the authority figure? (Closer = more obedience). How close is the victim? (Closer = more dissent).
2. Legitimacy of the Setting: Does the environment look professional and official? (Official = more obedience).
3. Authority Figure: Does the person giving orders look like they have the right to be in charge? (Uniform/Lab coat = more obedience).

Summary Table for Variations

Original Study (Yale): \(65\%\) obedience
Exp 7 (Telephone): \(22.5\%\) obedience
Exp 10 (Bridgeport Office): \(48\%\) obedience
Exp 13 (Ordinary Man): \(20\%\) obedience

Common Mistakes to Avoid

  • Mixing up the percentages: Remember that the original study had the highest obedience (\(65\%\)). Every variation we studied lowered obedience.
  • Saying the shocks were real: They were never real! Only the participant thought they were.
  • Forgetting Dissent: In your exam, you might be asked how these studies show factors that encourage dissent. To answer this, focus on why people stopped obeying (e.g., in Exp 7, they stopped because the Experimenter wasn't there to pressure them).

Cross-reference: To understand the theories behind why people obey, see the chapter on "Obedience: agency theory and social power theory."

Key Takeaway

Milgram’s research proved that obedience isn't just about being a "bad person." Instead, factors like where you are (Setting), who is giving the order (Authority), and how close they are (Proximity) play a massive role in whether you follow orders or choose to dissent.