Public Announcement
We Will Pay You $4.00 For One Hour of Your Time
Persons Needed for a Study of Memory
We will pay five hundred New Haven men to help us complete a scientific study of memory
and learning. The study is being at Yale University. Each person who participates will be
paid $4.00 (plus 50 cents carfare) for approximately one hour’s time. We need you for only
one hour there are no further obligations. You may choose the time you would like to come
(evenings, weekends, or weekdays). No special training, education, or experience is needed.
We want:
Factory workers
City employees
Laborers
Barbers
Businessmen
Clerks
Professionals
Telephone worker
Construction workers
Salespeople
White-collar workers
Others
All persons must be between the ages of 20 & 50. High school and college students cannot
be used.
Source: Adapted From Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, 1974, by Stanley Milgram.
--- Background --• Milgram was Asch's teaching assistant at Harvard in 1958
• He worked for Asch at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1959 & 1960
• Milgram's style of data presentation and results (percentages) similar to
Asch's original monograph on conformity
• Milgram's dissertation was a cross-cultural study of conformity
• Milgram's initially wanted to replicate Asch's conformity studies using
shocks
Basic Procedure
• Supposed random assignment to be either the "learner" or the "administrator"
(shocker)
• Read from the list of word pairs and determine if the answer from the "learner" is
correct.
Apple
Orange
Divide
Multiply
Coin
Dollar
Go
Road
Heavy
Fake)
• If answer is incorrect, the administrator has to shock the learner starting at 15
volts and going up at 15 volt increments (i.e., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 …..)
Basic Arrangement of Milgram's Studies
Shock Generator
• Generator volts ranged form 15 to 450 (XXX Danger)
The "Learner"
Basic Responses:
• Participants given a sample shock of 45 volts
• At 75 volts, he grunts
• At 120 volts, he complains loudly
• At 150, he demands to be released from the
experiment
• With increasing volts, the learner becomes more
emotional in his responses
• At 285 volts, his response resembles an agonized
scream. After that, he makes no sound at all
Predictions:
"Before the experiments, I sought predictions about the outcome from various kinds of
people -- psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle-class adults, graduate students and
faculty in the behavioral sciences. With remarkable similarity, they predicted that virtually
all the subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrist, specifically,
predicted that most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the victim makes his first
explicit demand to be freed. They expected that only 4 percent would reach 300 volts, and
that only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand would administer the highest
shock on the board". (Milgram, 1974)
EXPERIMENT #
VARIATION
RESULTS
1 thru 4
Proximity
#1 Study (Remote) = 65%
#2: Voice Feedback = 62.5
#3: Proximity(same room) = 40%
#4: Touch Proximity = 30%
5
Heart Problem
65% Obedience
7
Closeness of authority (orders given
over the phone)
22% Obedience*
8
Females as subjects
65% Obedience (less predicted)
10
Downtown site ("Research Associates
of Bridgeport”)
48% Obedience*
13
Ordinary person issues commands
(experimenter had to leave)
20% Obedience (4/20 )
13a
Accomplice assumes role of shocker;
subject as "bystander"
69% allowed obedience
17
2 peers (one administrator, one
recordkeeper); Subject as shocker
One peer rebels (at 150 level)
10% Obedience
“When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from others in his group. The
mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority.” --- (Milgram, 1974)
18
2 peers - both peers keep obeying
93% Obedience
Excerpt from Milgram Experiment
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learner (who, from the teacher’s point of view is heard but not seen, an offstage voice): Ow,
I can’t stand the pain. Don’t do that …
Teacher (pivoting around in his chair and shaking his head): I can’t stand it. I’m not
going to kill that man in there. You hear him hollering?
Experimenter: As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, butTeacher: But he’s hollering. He can’t stand it. What’s going to happen to him?
Experimenter (his voice patient, matter-of-fact): The experiment requires that you
continue, Teacher.
Teacher: Aaah, but, unh, I’m not going to get that man sick in there … know what I
mean?
Experimenter: Whether the learner likes it or not, we must go on, through all the
word pairs.
Teacher: I refuse to take responsibility. He’s in there hollering!
Experimenter: It’s absolutely essential that you continue, Teacher.
Teacher (indicating the unused questions): There’s too many left here, I mean, geez, if
he gets them wrong, there’s too many of them left. I mean who’s going to take the
responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?
Experimenter: I’m responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue please.
Milgram Experiment (setup for
experiments 17 & 18)
Learner
Experimenter
Peer
Subject
Peer
Obedience Quotes
With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority
and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and
decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by
the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing
harsh acts. …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 (Milgram, 1965).
“It is surprising how difficult it is for people to keep situational forces in mind, as they seek a
totally personalistic interpretation of obedience, divorced from the specific situational
pressures acting on the individual” (Milgram, 1974).
…The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of
person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will
act. (Milgram, 1974)
“Any interpretation involving the attacker’s strong sadistic impulses is inadequate. There is no
evidence that the majority of those who participated in such killings is sadistically inclined”
(Kelman, & Hamilton, 1989, p.13, regarding the My Lai massacre)
Influence of Studies
• # of reprints in anthologies (e.g., Aronson)
• TV drama (10th level)
• 60 minutes
• Magazine interviews (e.g., Esquire, Harpers)
• Book “Obedience to Authority” (1974)
Methodology (initial study) --• No manipulated variables
• No control condition
• No theoretically derived hypotheses
• No specific predictions [Paper rejected twice; JPSP and Journal of Personality]
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 371-378.
~ Additional Factors Affecting Obedience Rates ~
• Sense of urgency (time pressure)
• No communication
• Step by step increases in shock levels
• State of “agency” (others are responsible)
Destructive Obedience?
Did Milgram find evidence for “destructive” obedience? Did participants
knowingly and voluntarily harm the learner ?
What was the mindset of the participants?
How did they interpret the situation?
• Many cues (what subjects were told, background information) that the
learner was not going to be significantly (permanently) harmed
• Administration of pain was believed as important in this context
• Role of conflicting cues (danger label on the shock generator, behavior
of the learner versus reactions of the experimenter)
• Continued presence of the experimenter
Taxonomy of Principle-Agent Relationships
Surveillance
Means-Ends
High
Low
Goals Specified
Independent
contractor with
possibility of
consultation
Independent
contractor determines
own actions
Actions specified
Milgram
condition
“Master-servant”
“Master-servant”
relationship; “Master” relationship; “Servant”
determines actions
has action discretion
Obedience As A Developmental/Learning Process in the Real World?
If sanctioned by outside (organizational) forces, people may independently, calmly,
and willing do what they were initially reluctant to do (Darley, 1995)
The conversion process: “Over time, and in conditions conductive to such
transformations, good people can become truly evil ---- dispositionally and
morally evil” (Darley 1992)
An example:
• Individual does not obey or alters a procedure to be less “effective”
• Authority figure rejects the actions of the agent
• Crisis point (exit or remain in the system)
• If one stays, more likely to obey in the future (evil-doing can be learned)
Arendt (1963): “Great evil rises out of ordinary psychological processes that evolve,
usually with a progression along the continuum of destruction”
Generalization Issue
"Hospital" Study --Physician ordered a medicine to be administered to a patient in a ward
Specific conditions:
a) Done over the phone (against hospital policy) and by an unfamiliar voice
b) Medication not on ward stock list and not cleared for use
c) Dosage was an obviously excessive one
•
21/22 Nurses agreed to administer the drug
>>> Written description given to 12 nurses (control condition). They were asked how
they would act
•
10/12 nurses said they would not administer the drug
Source: Hofling, Brotzman, Da;rymple, Graves, & Pierce (1966). Experimental study in
nurse-physician relationships. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143(2), 171-180.
~ Ethical Issues ~
• Use of deception (lack of informed consent)
• Harmful long-term effects to participants
• Adequacy of debriefing
• The right to withdraw (use of 4th prod)
~ The 4 Prods ~
• Please continue, or please go on
• The experiment requires that you go on
• It is absolutely essential that you continue
• You have no other choice, you must go on.
Milgram’s Position
• Understanding of critical phenomenon
• Insight of participants
• Criticism due to nature of findings
• Every effort to debrief (purpose of study, follow-up report & questionnaire,
psychiatric interview 1 year later)
• Results were unexpected
• No harm to participants (especially long-term; many would do it again)
Studies of destructive obedience to authority
Study
Milgram (1963)
USA
Male general population
Female general population
65
65
Rosenhan (in Milgram, 1974)
85
Ancona and Pareyson (1968)
Mantell (1971)
USA
Students
Italy
Germany
Students
Male general population
85
85
Kilham and Mann (1974)
Australia
Male students
Female students
40
16
Burley and McGuiness (1977)
Shanab and Yahya (1978)
Miranda et al. (1981)
Schurz (1985)
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)
UK
Jordan
Spain
Austria
Holland
Male students
Students
Students
General population
General population
50
62
> 90
80
92
Recent Obedience Study (Burger 2009)
• Replicated Milgram's shock study
• Stopped at the 150 volt level (key level in Milgram's research)
• Adult sample (greater age range and education level)
• Psychologist prescreened those who were likely to have poor reactions to the study
(38% eliminated)
• Participants told many times they could leave and debriefing was done immediately
following the study
Findings:
• 70% obedience at the 150 level vs. 82.5% found by Milgram (no significant
difference)