Milgram Shock Experiment

Question #1: Article Analysis Question
Your response to the question should be provided in six parts: A, B, C, D, E, and F.  Write the response to each part of the question in complete sentences.  Use appropriate psychological terminology in your response.

Using the source provided, respond to the following questions.

A.  Identify the research method used in the study.
B.  State the operational definition of obedience.
C.  Describe the meaning of the differences in the percentages of participants obeying at different voltage levels.
D.  Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.
E.  Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.
F.  Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes the researcher’s hypothesis that very few people would harm others just because they are instructed to do so.


Milgram’s Obedience Study


Introduction

Stanley Milgram's obedience studies, conducted in the early 1960s, stand as a landmark exploration of human behavior and its susceptibility to authority. His research, though highly controversial due to ethical concerns, shed light on the human tendency to follow orders even when they conflict with personal conscience.  He sought to understand the factors driving ordinary individuals to inflict harm on others when instructed to do so by an authority figure. The results became a chilling testament to the power of obedience within a hierarchical structure and sparked a longstanding ethical debate within the field of psychology.  This synopsis explores the design, execution, and lasting impact of Milgram's obedience studies.

Participants


Milgram recruited a group of 40 male participants, aged between 20 and 50 years old, through newspaper advertisements in the New Haven area. Participants represented a diverse range of backgrounds and occupations. They were compensated for their participation, under the premise that they would be assisting in a study on learning and memory.

Methods

Deception: Participants were intentionally misled about the true nature of the study. They were told it was a study examining the effects of punishment on learning.
Roles: Participants were assigned the role of "teacher" while a confederate (an actor working with the researchers) played the role of "learner."  The “learner” was to learn simple word pairs and provide verbal answers.  The “teacher” was instructed to administer electric shocks to the “learner” for incorrect answers.
Fake Shock Generator: A seemingly authentic shock generator with switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts (labeled with descriptions like "Slight Shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock") was used. The “teacher” was unaware that the shock generator was fake and that no shocks were actually being administered.

Instructions: The researcher instructed the “teacher” to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the “learner” for each incorrect answer on the word memory task. The “learner,” in a separate room, expressed predetermined signs of pain and distress, escalating to pleas for the shocks to stop, and even refusing to continue.  Eventually the “learner” stopped responding at all.  The researcher, a seemingly authoritative figure, urged the “teacher” to proceed despite the protests and lack of cooperation.

Data

Milgram primarily measured obedience by the highest voltage level a participant administered to the learner. He also meticulously recorded participants' behavior, verbal responses, and physiological reactions (e.g., sweating, trembling, nervous laughter). The data demonstrated high levels of obedience in the face of internal conflict.

Results and Discussion

Contrary to the researchers' expectations, a staggering 65% of participants continued to administer shocks up to the highest level of 450 volts, even while expressing discomfort and hearing the “learner” cry out in protest and pain. The remaining 35% stopped at varying voltage levels.  Variations of the study explored the influence of different factors on obedience. For example, placing the teacher closer to the learner (increased proximity) or introducing a dissenting confederate ("rebel teacher") who refused to obey, significantly reduced obedience rates.

Milgram's studies highlighted several key conclusions:

-The Power of Authority: People's tendency to follow the directives of an authority figure can override their personal moral judgment and compassion.
-Situational Influence: The environment and context of the study, including the presence of a credible researcher at a prestigious institution, played a significant role in fostering obedience.
-Gradual Escalation: The incremental increase in shock voltage made it harder for participants to resist compared to a sudden directive to inflict severe harm.
-Conflict and Discomfort: Although participants exhibited visible distress, they often continued, suggesting a struggle between obedience and conscience.
Important Considerations

Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student.  

However, Milgram's work generated significant controversy due to the deception involved and the potential psychological distress it caused participants. Despite the ethical concerns, the findings continue to be highly influential in understanding obedience, conformity, and the influence of authority.  Modern research, however,  adheres to stricter ethical guidelines to protect participants’ well-being.

Citation
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row.

Identify the research method used in the study.

State the operational definition of obedience.

Describe the meaning of the differences in the percentages of participants obeying at different voltage levels.

 Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers.

Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.

Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes the researcher’s hypothesis that very few people would harm others just because they are instructed to do so.