Revised Unit 9 AAQ Replication of Milgram's Study (copy)

Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, led a series of studies that tested whether people would obey the commands of a researcher in a lab. The study presented is a replication of one of Milgram’s original studies.

Participants

Individuals who responded to advertisements and flyers went through a series of screening procedures to eliminate people who had taken more than two psychology courses in college; been diagnosed with, or had therapy for, a psychological disorder; abused alcohol or drugs; had medical conditions affected by stress; or experienced severe trauma. The final sample had 29 men and 41 women. The participants ranged in age from 20 to 81 (mean age = 42.9 years, standard deviation = 15.67, median age = 41). Participant education and race/ethnicity demographics are presented in the table.  The study's participant demographics include education level and race/ethnicity. Regarding education, 12 participants (17.1%) had a high school education or less, while 16 participants (22.9%) had some college experience. The largest group, consisting of 28 participants (40.0%), held a bachelor's degree, and 14 participants (20.0%) had earned a master’s degree. In terms of race and ethnicity, the majority of participants identified as White (38 participants, 54.3%). The second-largest group consisted of Asian participants (19 participants, 26.7%), followed by Latino/a/Hispanic participants (9 participants, 12.9%). A smaller proportion of participants identified as African American (3 participants, 4.3%), and 1 participant (1.4%) chose not to state their ethnicity.

Method

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the “base” condition and the “modeled refusal” condition. The participants signed consent forms saying they could end their participation at any time and keep the $50 they were paid to participate.

In the base condition, the participant was paired with a “learner,” who was a research confederate. The participant read 25 different word-pairs (e.g., strong–arm) that the “learner” had to recall. If the “learner” gave an incorrect answer, the participant administered an electric shock using a “shock generator” that had switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts in 15-volt increments. The shock was fake, but the participant did not know this. The. The participant moved up one switch on the shock generator for each incorrect answer.

While the participants watched, the researcher strapped the “learners” into a chair with electrodes. The participant then went to another room for the remainder of the study. The “learners” gave correct and incorrect responses according to a predetermined schedule. After participants pressed the 75-volt switch, they heard a small grunt from the “learner.” The grunts got louder after each successive shock. When a participant pressed the 150-volt switch, the “learner” yelled, “Ugh. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. I refuse to go on. Let me out.”

If the participant expressed reluctance or hesitation at any time, the researcher gave one of four directions, in this order: “Please continue”; “The research requires that you continue”; “It is absolutely essential that you continue”; and “You have no other choice, you must continue.” The researcher assessed whether the participants continued to administer shocks after receiving each direction. The base condition ended when the participant refused to continue or agreed to continue at the shock level just past 150 volts.

In the modeled refusal condition, the procedures were the same as the base condition except for an additional confederate who was paired with each participant. The men were paired with a White man in his 50s. Women were paired with a White woman in her late 20s. The researcher pretended to randomly choose the participant to be Teacher 2 and the additional confederate to be Teacher 1. Teacher 1 administered shocks to the “learner” according to the procedures as the participant watched. At the 90-volt shock level, Teacher 1 said to the researcher, “I don’t know about this.” The researcher responded with “Please continue.” Teacher 1 paused and then said, “I don’t think I can do this,” and pushed their chair from the table. The researcher then asked Teacher 2 (the participant) to continue the test, picking up where Teacher 1 left off.

As with the base condition, if the participant (Teacher 2) expressed reluctance or hesitation, the researcher gave one of the four directions as described. The researcher assessed whether the participants continued to administer shocks after receiving each direction. The modeled refusal condition also ended when the participant refused to continue or agreed to continue at the shock level just past 150 volts.

When the study was over, the researcher explained that the ‘learner’ was not receiving electric shocks.  The ‘Learner” entered the lab room at that point to assure the participant that they were fine.

Results and Discussion

In the base condition, 12 participants (30%) stopped at 150 volts or earlier, while 28 participants (70%) continued beyond this level. In the modeled refusal condition, slightly more participants stopped at 150 volts or earlier, with 11 participants (36.7%) refusing to continue, whereas 19 participants (63.3%) continued beyond 150 volts. For comparison, in Milgram’s original study, only 7 participants (17.5%) stopped at 150 volts or earlier, while the vast majority—33 participants (82.5%)—continued past this level.

When examining participants' behavior based on gender, results indicate some differences in responses:

• Base Condition: Among men, 6 participants (33.3%) stopped at 150 volts or earlier, while 12 participants (66.7%) continued beyond 150 volts. Among women, 6 participants (27.3%) stopped at 150 volts or earlier, while 16 participants (72.7%) continued beyond this level.

• Modeled Refusal Condition: In this condition, a slightly larger proportion of men refused to continue. Among men, 5 participants (45.5%) stopped at 150 volts or earlier, while 6 participants (54.5%) continued beyond. Among women, 6 participants (31.6%) stopped at 150 volts or earlier, whereas 13 participants (68.4%) continued past 150 volts.