Milgram (obedience)

Welcome to the Social Approach: Understanding Obedience

Hello! Today, we are diving into one of the most famous and controversial studies in the history of psychology: Milgram’s (1963) study on obedience. Have you ever wondered why people follow orders even when they know what they are doing is wrong? This study explores that exact question.

Don’t worry if some of this feels heavy at first. We will break it down step-by-step. By the end of these notes, you’ll understand why this study changed the way we think about human nature!

1. What is the "Social Approach"?

Before we look at Milgram, we need to understand the "Social Approach." In psychology, this approach assumes that:

• Social Context: Our behavior is influenced by the environment and the people around us.
• Presence of Others: We act differently when people are actually there, when we imagine they are there, or even when their presence is just implied (like a "Keep Off the Grass" sign).

Analogy: Think about how you behave when you are alone in your room versus how you behave when a teacher is standing right behind you. That change in your behavior is exactly what social psychologists study!

2. The Background: Why did Milgram do this?

Milgram wanted to understand the Holocaust during World War II. Many people defended their horrific actions by saying, "I was only following orders."

Milgram wanted to test two different explanations for this:

1. The Dispositional Hypothesis: The idea that there was something "different" about the personality of the people involved (e.g., that Germans were naturally more obedient).

2. The Situational Hypothesis: The idea that anyone might behave that way if they were put in a specific situation with a powerful authority figure.

Key Takeaway: Milgram was investigating the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

3. The Aim of the Study

To investigate how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

4. The Methodology (How it was done)

Research Method: This was a controlled observation in a laboratory setting at Yale University.
Note for your exams: The syllabus mentions there was no Independent Variable (IV) in the main study, though Milgram did variations later. The Dependent Variable (DV) was the level of obedience (the maximum shock the participant was willing to give).

The Participants (The Sample)

• Who: 40 males, aged 20–50.
• Jobs: They had various jobs, from laborers to professionals.
• Sampling Technique: Volunteer sampling. They responded to a newspaper advertisement for a "study of memory and learning."
• Reward: They were paid \$4.50 (which was a lot back then!) just for showing up.
\n

\n\n

Quick Review: Why use a lab? It allows for standardization (everyone experiences the exact same thing), which makes the study more reliable.

\n\n

5. The Procedure: Step-by-Step

\n

This is where things get interesting (and a bit scary!):

\n

1. The Setup: The participant met a "stooge" (a person working for Milgram) named Mr. Wallace. They "drew lots" to see who would be the Teacher and who would be the Learner. This was rigged—the participant was always the Teacher.

\n

2. The Task: The Learner was strapped into a chair in another room. The Teacher (participant) was told to give the Learner a memory test. If the Learner got an answer wrong, the Teacher had to give them an electric shock.

\n

3. The Shock Machine: It looked very real. It had 30 switches ranging from 15V (Slight Shock) to 450V (XXX). The participant even received a sample shock of 45V to prove it was "real."

\n

4. The Shocks: For every wrong answer, the Teacher had to go up by 15V.
\nSyllabus Note: In this specific version, the Teacher did not hear voice-feedback (screams) from the Victim, but they did hear him pound on the wall at 300V.

\n

5. The Prods: If the Teacher hesitated, an "Experimenter" in a gray lab coat gave standardized prods:

\n

\n
• Prod 1: "Please continue."
\n
• Prod 2: "The experiment requires that you continue."
\n
• Prod 3: "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
\n
• Prod 4: "You have no other choice, you must go on."
\n

\n\n

Common Mistake: Students often think the Learner was actually being shocked. He wasn't! Mr. Wallace was an actor, and the shocks were fake.

\n\n

6. The Results

\n

What do you think happened? Most people predicted that only 1-3% would go to the end. They were wrong.

\n

Quantitative Data (Numbers):

\n

\n
• 100% of participants went to 300V.
\n
• 65% (26 out of 40) went all the way to 450V (the maximum).
\n

\n

Qualitative Data (Observations):

\n

Participants showed signs of extreme stress. They were sweating, trembling, stuttering, and biting their lips. 14 out of 40 had fits of nervous laughter. One participant even had a severe seizure due to the stress.

\n\n

Did you know? Even though they were stressed, they kept clicking the switches! This shows the power of social pressure.

\n\n

7. Conclusions

\n

Milgram concluded that:

\n

\n
• People are much more obedient to authority than we expect.
\n
• The situation (being at a prestigious university, having an experimenter in a lab coat, being paid) was more powerful than the person's individual conscience.
\n

\n\n

Key Takeaway: We shouldn't ask "What kind of person would do this?" but rather "What kind of situation makes people do this?"

\n\n

8. Evaluation: Strengths and Weaknesses

\n\n

Strengths:

\n

\n
• Reliability: Because it was a lab study with standardized prods, it can be repeated easily to see if we get the same results.
\n
• Control: Milgram could control many variables, such as what the Experimenter said and how the shock machine looked.
\n

\n\n

Weaknesses:

\n

\n
• Ethics: This is the big one!\n
  \n
  • Deception: Participants thought they were shocking a real person.
  \n
  • Right to Withdraw: The prods made it very difficult for participants to feel they could leave.
  \n
  • Harm: Participants were put under huge psychological stress.
  \n
  \n
\n
• Ecological Validity: Giving electric shocks to a stranger in a lab is not an everyday task. Therefore, the results might not tell us how people behave in the real world.
\n

\n\n

9. Memory Aid: The "4 P's" of the Experimenter

\n

If you find it hard to remember why people stayed obedient, remember the 4 P's:

\n

1. Pay: They were paid \$4.50.

2. Prestige: It was at Yale University.

3. Prods: The experimenter used 4 set phrases to keep them going.

4. Professional: The experimenter wore a lab coat, looking like a legitimate authority.

Quick Review Box:
- Sample: 40 males (Volunteer).
- Max Shock: 450V.
- Result: 65% went to the max.
- Conclusion: Situations cause obedience.

Final Encouragement

Milgram’s study is a lot to take in because it challenges our idea of being "good people." Don't worry if the ethical issues or the percentages feel confusing at first—just remember: it’s all about the power of the situation! Keep practicing with the "4 P's" and you'll be an expert in no time.