Volume 20, Number 4, April 2015
Debate
Milgram’s obedience studies
Matt Jarvis
Stanley Milgram’s studies on obedience to authority are well known but controversial: see the
articles in PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW by Gina Perry (September 2014, pp. 18–20) and by Stephen
Reicher and Alexander Haslam (this issue, pp. 10–12). Here Matt Jarvis summarises the
contrasting views in this debate.
Context
Milgram
Stanley Milgram conducted a series of laboratory studies of destructive obedience throughout the
1960s. He concluded that people are surprisingly obedient to instructions from figures in authority to
harm another person, although people showed high levels of stress at doing so.
Perry
Gina Perry recently revisited the Milgram studies, reviewing his notes, listening to recordings of the
studies and interviewing participants. She concluded that in a number of ways the story of what really
happened differs from that presented in Milgram’s publications and textbook accounts.
Haslam and Reicher
Leading social psychologists Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher have commented on Milgram’s
work in the light of the Perry review and on her conclusions. Haslam and Reicher have agreed with
some of Perry’s conclusions but challenged others. In particular they disagree about Milgram’s ethics.
The procedures
Milgram
Milgram’s published papers report that there were tightly controlled procedures in which the
experimenter worked through a series of four verbal prods to exert mild pressure on participants to
obey orders to give increasing shocks to a man. When the fourth prod was resisted, the procedure
was ended.
Perry
Having listened to recordings of these sessions, Perry concluded that in fact the experimenter added
considerable pressure on participants to obey, deviating from the standard prompts and sometimes
not accepting the fourth refusal as the end of the procedure.
Haslam and Reicher
Haslam and Reicher accept that some aspects of Milgram’s procedure were not reported well, but do
not see Milgram as dishonest. They make the point that if Milgram had wished to deceive he would
probably not have made and kept such detailed records for others like Perry to review.
Philip Allan Updates © 2015
1
The conclusions
Milgram
Milgram concluded that participants were surprisingly obedient and that they suffered distress at the
situation. Milgram believed participants really thought that they were seriously harming someone but
saw no alternative to obeying.
Perry
Perry challenged Milgram’s conclusions. She found evidence in the archives of several participants
questioning whether the procedure was real and whether their administering shocks was actually
hurting participants.
Haslam and Reicher
Haslam and Reicher point out that there is little doubt that participants experienced distress during the
procedure. This suggests they did believe the situation was genuine. Haslam and Reicher do not
accept all Milgram’s conclusions about obedience but they do accept that Milgram’s participants
believed they were hurting someone.
Ethical issues
Milgram
Milgram argued that participants only suffered short-term distress, and that he had made sure they
were in a good psychological state when they completed the procedure. He also reported that when
surveyed, the vast majority of participants were glad to have taken part.
Perry
Perry found evidence in Milgram’s archives to suggest that actually many of Milgram’s participants
were traumatised by their experience. There was also evidence to suggest that many were not
immediately debriefed, some waiting almost a year before finding they had not in fact really harmed
anyone.
Haslam and Reicher
Haslam and Reicher agree that although Milgram was a competent researcher there are questions
over his ethics. In addition to the distress Milgram caused his participants, they also raise another
issue: he encouraged participants to believe that it is acceptable to cause distress for the sake of
science.
This resource is part of PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, a magazine written for A-level students by
subject experts. To subscribe to the full magazine go to
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/psychologyreview
Philip Allan Updates © 2015
2