The Milgram Obedience Studies (1963 & 1965)

1. The Milgram Obedience Studies(1963 & 1965) And “Milgram Revisited” (Jerry Burger, 2009) www.ThePsychFiles.com

2. Experimental Question • Under what conditions will people carry out the commands of an authority figure and when will they refuse to obey? • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378. • Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76 www.ThePsychFiles.com

3. Milgram Study Setup • Subjects were told that they were participating in a study on the effect of punishment on memory • One “participant” in the study - the “learner” (“Mr. Wallace” - real name Bob McDonough) was a confederate of Milgram and one was the true subject - the “teacher” • The teacher was given a list of “paired associates” • Examples • The “teacher” was told to shock the learner when the learner gave an incorrect response www.ThePsychFiles.com

4. Milgram Study Setup • The “learner” is hooked up to what appears to be a shock generating machine with 30 switches labeled from “Slight Shock” to “Danger: Severe Shock” • The “teachers” were given a shock of 45 volts to convince them that the shocks were real • The “learner’s” response to the questions is scripted (and played back on a tape recorder) • At 150 volts the “learner” is heard asking that the experiment stop www.ThePsychFiles.com

5. www.ThePsychFiles.com

6. Milgram Study Setup • Experimenter prompts: if the “teacher” objected to continuing the experiment, the experimenter’s script included the following prompts: • Please continue (or “Please go on”) • The experiment requires that you continue • It is absolutely essential that you continue • You have no other choice, you must go on www.ThePsychFiles.com

7. www.ThePsychFiles.com

8. Milgram Study Results • Milgram: “There were powerful reactions of tension and emotional strain in a substantial proportion of the participants. Persons were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips…” • Remarks from two subjects: • “Is he banging? Is he hurt out there? Well, I don’t want to be responsible for anything that happens to him. No, I can’t go on with it. I don’t know whether he’s all right or not. I mean he may have a heart condition or something. I wouldn’t feel right doing it….I don’t see any sense to this…I just can’t see it • “You want me to keep going? You hear him hollering? What if something happens to him? I refuse to take responsibility…. www.ThePsychFiles.com

9. Milgram Study Results • The experimental setup was described to 40 psychiatrists. They predicted that no one would go beyond the 10th level (150 volts) • Actual results: 65% of the subjects obeyed the experimenter and shocked the “learner” all the way to 450 volts (“Severe Shock”) • No difference between men and women www.ThePsychFiles.com

10. www.ThePsychFiles.com

11. Milgram: What You May Not Have Heard • The “learner”, Mr. McDonough, died of a heart attack three years after the studies ended. His neighbor, who unsuccessfully tried to revive him using mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, had been a “teacher” in the Milgram studies and had administered “shocks” to Mr. McDonough just a few years earlier. • One of the “teachers” (who had gone all the way to 450 volts) was invited into a social psychology class to speak about his experience in the study. The students (who had already learned about the study) were nearly silent and stared at him with accusing and disbelieving eyes. He reminded the class that you never know what you might have done in that situation. • “Beyond the Shock Machine” - Gina Perry www.ThePsychFiles.com

12. Why Did People Obey?(Burger, 2009) • Obedience to Authority • “…our culture socializes individuals to obey certain authority figures such as police officers, teachers, and parents.” • the perceived expertise of the experimenter contributed to the participants’ decision to follow the instructions (Morelli, 1983) www.ThePsychFiles.com

13. Why Did People Obey?(Burger, 2009) • A Need for Consistency: The well-demonstrated need to act and appear in a consistent manner [think of cognitive dissonance studies] would have made it difficult for a participant to refuse to press the 195-volt switch after just pressing the 180-volt switch • Interviewee in “Beyond the Shock Machine” says, “If you had to push the 450 volt switch first, no one would do it”) • A Change in Self-Perception: agreeing to small requests, such as pressing the low-voltage switches, can change the way people think about themselves. Participants may have come to see themselves as the kind of persons who follow the experimenter’s instructions • Escalation of Commitment - “well, I’m in it this far, might as well go all the way…” www.ThePsychFiles.com

14. Why Did People Obey?(Burger, 2009) Agentic theory:When we act as the agent of someone in authority we find it easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions (lack autonomy) - just following orders or just doing our job. E.g. Nazi soldiers in the war- One guard at his trial in Nuremberg famously quoted he was not to blame as he was doing as he was told therefore he should not be held accountable. • Most subjects asked who would be responsible • The experimenter stated that he would be responsible www.ThePsychFiles.com

15. Milgram’s Additional Research Findings • Conditions that decreased obedience: • 1) Proximity of the “learner”: • obedience decreased if the learner was in the same room as the teacher • Obedience decreased if the teacher had to physically place the learner’s hand on a shock plate • Explanation: visual cues of someone else’s pain triggers an empathic response www.ThePsychFiles.com

16. Milgram’s Additional Research Findings • Conditions that decreased obedience: • 2) Closeness of the authority figure • Usually the experimenter sat a few feet away from the teacher • Obedience decreased when the experimenter… • left the lab and gave the instructions by telephone • was never seen and instructions were left on a tape recorder • Also found: when the experimenter was in another room or when he was not present the “teachers” falsely reported how much shock they were giving the “learner” • Explanation: people will take a stronger stand when they do not have to encounter an authority figure face-to-face www.ThePsychFiles.com

17. Milgram’s Additional Research Findings • Conditions that decreased obedience • 3) Prestige of the experimenter • The initial studies took place at Yale University with the experimenter dressed in a white lab coat • Obedience decreased when the study was moved to Bridgeport, Connecticut and conducted by the fictional “Research Associates of Bridgeport” www.ThePsychFiles.com

18. Milgram Study Results • Conditions that decreased obedience • 4) disobedient models • When other “teachers” (who were actually confederates of the experimenter) sat with the teacher and disobeyed the experimenter, 90% of the real subjects disobeyed as well www.ThePsychFiles.com

19. Milgram’s Conclusions • “The results, as seen and felt in the laboratory, are to this author disturbing. They raise the possibility that human nature, or more specifically the kind of characters produced in American democratic society, cannot be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authority. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.” • Stanley Milgram, Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority www.ThePsychFiles.com

20. Milgram’s Conclusions • If in this study an anonymous experimenter could successfully command adults to subdue a fifty-one year old man, and force on him painful electric shocks against his protests one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige can command of its subjects.” • Stanley Milgram, Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority www.ThePsychFiles.com

21. Replicating Milgram • Jerry M. Burger, Santa Clara University: Replicating Milgram: Will People Still Obey Today? American Psychologist, January 2009. • Burger replicates Milgram study, but with the following safeguards: • “The 150 volt solution” • 2-step subject screening process • Repeated reminders that subjects could withdraw at any time • Lower voltage “sample shock” (15 volts vs. 45 volts in Milgram’s study) • Debrief occurred seconds after the study ended • The “experimenter” was not an actor, but a clinical psychologist • Procedures were approved by the Santa Clara University IRB. www.ThePsychFiles.com

22. Burger’s Safeguards • “The 150 Volt Solution” • After the “teacher” presses the 150 volt switch: • The “learner” is heard demanding to be released from the study • “Nearly every participant paused, and most turned to the experimenter to indicate verbally or nonverbally their reluctance to continue.” - Burger, 2009 • The data: • 79% of the teachers who went past 150 volts continued all the way to 450 volts • “…the 150-volt switch is something of a point of no return.” • Since this is so, then why not have a shock machine with switches that go all the way to 450 volts, but stop the study if and when a “teacher” presses the 150 volts switch (he or she would probably have gone all the way to 450 anyway) www.ThePsychFiles.com

23. Burger’s Safeguards • 2) Interviews: • Questionnaires filled out in step 1 were given to a licensed clinical psychologist, who conducted an interview with the subjects (average: 30 minutes) • “Of the 123 people who participated in this second screening process, 47 (38.2%) were excluded from the study by the clinical psychologist” - p. 6 www.ThePsychFiles.com

24. Burger’s Experimental Conditions • 1) Base Condition: pretty much the same experimental setup as Milgram: • Rigged drawing to determine “learner” and “teacher” • Confederate gets strapped into a chair with electrodes attached, etc. “Learner” explains that he had a “slight heart condition” • “Teacher” is sat down in front of the “shock machine” and given 25 word pairs (ex: “strong-arm”) and is • Pre-recorded sounds were played at pre-determined shock switches (ex: grunts) • 150 volt level: “Ugh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” www.ThePsychFiles.com

25. Burger’s Debriefing Vs. Milgram • Milgram Debriefing: “…participants were …told only that the shock generator’s labels of shock intensity were appropriate for small animals but not for humans and that the confederate had been receiving considerably milder shocks than his behavior indicated. Because Milgram anticipated a much more extensive series of experiments than Burger did, he maintained some degree of deception of most participants until he was ready to send them a full report on the intent of the research …” • Alan C. Elms, University of California, Davis, “Obedience Lite”, American Psychologist, January 2009 (p. 34) www.ThePsychFiles.com

26. Burger’s Debriefing Vs. Milgram • Burger Debriefing: “As soon as the experimenter announced that the study was over, he told the participant that the shock generator was not real and that the confederate was not receiving electric shocks. The confederate entered the lab room at that point to assure the participant that he was fine….the participant was [then] escorted to a nearby room, where the principal investigator conducted a thorough debriefing.” - Burger, p. 7 www.ThePsychFiles.com

27. Resources • Videos: • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU&feature=PlayList&p=0E7E96C460850EFE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2 • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoo-cU3Y&feature=PlayList&p=0E7E96C460850EFE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3 • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w • Derren Brown: • http://derrenbrownart.com/blog/?p=2102 www.ThePsychFiles.com