READING 7
Behavioral Study of Obedience by Milgram (1963)
Please refer to the printed reader, Readings in Social Psychology 3/e, for the text of this article.
Overview
Milgram’s research on obedience to authority is the best known, most dramatic, and most controversial in the history of social psychology. Inspired by the events of World War II Nazi Germany, Milgram constructed a laboratory setting that called upon ordinary people, in response to commands issued by a psychology experimenter, to inflict increasing amounts of pain against an innocent man. Would anyone do it? If so, under what conditions? And what could be done to empower individuals to resist? The following article is Milgram’s account of the first of many experiments he would go on to conduct on this subject. Read it, try to put yourself into the shoes of those who took part, and consider what it says about human nature and the way in which each of us can be overwhelmed by powerful situations. Then read in Chapter 7 (Conformity) about the numerous variations on this study that Milgram performed and ask yourself why some factors made little or no difference on the rates of obedience and why other factors did have a significant impact on these results.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Consider the different types of research studies mentioned in Chapter 2 (i.e., descriptive, correlational, and experimental). What type of research design is the study reported in this reading? How do you know?
2. Milgram reports that when told about the design of this study and asked to estimate what percentage of participants would go to the end of the shock panel, people predict that only about 1% of participants would go all the way to 450 Volts. How does the Fundamental Attribution Error help us explain this difference in people’s predictions versus what actually happened in the study?
3. In addition to discussing obedience, Chapter 7 also focuses on the concept of compliance. One topic discussed in the chapter is the foot-in-the-door technique. How is this technique relevant to the experiences of participants in the Milgram study?
4. One would think that individuals who harm a stranger might experience cognitive dissonance (Chapter 6). Is there any evidence that these participants experienced dissonance? What strategies could the Milgram participants potentially use to reduce such dissonance?
5. Milgram himself begins this article with a reference to the Holocaust, and many have since used his results in the attempt to analyze how seemingly normal men and women could have contributed to genocide during World War II. Do you think this is appropriate? That is, to what extent can we generalize from these results to real-life examples of mass-murder or other atrocity? What would be the most compelling arguments for and against such extrapolation?
6. The Milgram study is also often cited in discussion of research ethics in social psychology. Do you think this study was ethical to conduct? What would be the most compelling reasons for and against an ethics board approving a study like this one?
Answers to Critical Thinking Questions
1. Despite the fact that the Milgram study is often referred to as an experiment, it is best classified as a descriptive study. Its main finding is a descriptive conclusion: 65% of participants went all the way to the end of the shock panel. In order for the study to be an experiment, it would have required a manipulated independent variable and random assignment to condition. Even though Milgram went to great lengths to create an engaging and deceptive research situation, it was not technically an experiment because no variable was manipulated and there was only one condition. As Chapter 7 discusses, Milgram went on to run a number of variations on the original study, in which he changed the physical proximity of the teacher and learner, the location of the study, the physical appearance of the researcher, and so on. By comparing these variations, one can approximate an experimental design in which different situational conditions are compared to one another. But in its original form, the Milgram study would not qualify as a true experiment.
2. The Fundamental Attribution Error is the tendency for perceivers to overestimate the dispositional causes of behavior and underestimate its situational causes. The assumption that very few people would go all the way to the end of the shock panel in the Milgram paradigm is based on the idea that only an abnormally cruel or sociopathic individual would be capable of such behavior. Instead, what the Milgram study so powerfully demonstrates is that regular people will engage in this behavior when placed in a situation with a confident and persuasive authority figure. Milgram’s results reveal the power of the situation, a consideration often overlooked in people’s daily attributional processes.
3. That 65% of participants went all the way to the end of the shock panel in this study is not just a testament to human tendencies to obey authority, but also reflects careful design considerations on the part of Milgram. For one, participants were not asked to use a potentially lethal dose of 450 V right off the bat. Rather, they began with a mild shock of 15 V and increased this voltage throughout the study. This aspect of the paradigm operates on much the same premise as the foot-in-the-door compliance technique outlined in Chapter 7. Having already agreed to a small request of administering a 15 V shock, participants are hard pressed to find a reason not to go up to 30 V. Each subsequent increase in voltage leads to a similar thought process, until, before they know it, participants are at the end of the panel. As the foot-in-the-door technique demonstrates, people are more likely to agree to a request if they have already agreed to a smaller one beforehand.
4. There is reasonable evidence that participants in the Milgram study experienced dissonance. Participants often asked, “Who’s going to be responsible for the outcome of the study?” Only after they were assured that they were not responsible for any harm to the learner did participants go on with the study, suggesting that this response alleviated much of their cognitive dissonance. Many participants also said that they felt agitated and aroused throughout the study, indicating that their behavior made them exceedingly uncomfortable as they progressed. This, too, would be consistent with the conclusion that participants were experiencing cognitive dissonance. One way for participants to eliminate dissonance would have been to convince themselves that they had no choice but to engage in the behavior. Participants also may have added consonant cognitions such as, “this is a research study and they would never let anyone get hurt in a study.”
5. The generalizability of the Milgram study to the real world is a complex question about which intelligent people disagree. On the one hand, this study demonstrates the extreme power of the situation. In a remarkably short period of time, Milgram took 20 ordinary U.S. citizens, and absent any type of physical coercion, led them to administer what they believed to be lethal shocks to an innocent stranger. Many of the atrocities perpetrated during the Holocaust were carried out or made possible by the actions of theretofore ordinary Europeans, many of whom claimed to be following orders. On the other hand, there is a big difference between pushing buttons in a laboratory and participating in genocide or military atrocities. Some critics would argue that the Milgram study is too far removed from reality to explain real-world behavior. This argument casts doubt on using the Milgram study to explain the behavior of concentration camp guards and others with first-hand participation in the Holocaust, but many collaborators were simply bureaucrats or other government employees who were just “pushing buttons.” Regardless of your personal views on this matter, Milgram’s research demonstrates that humans are at the very least capable of acts of extreme indifference, and his study reveals how ordinary people can engage in surprisingly extraordinary acts with just a little prompting from an authority figure.
6. The ethical appropriateness of any study is ultimately up to the decision of an Institutional Review Board. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis through a careful consideration of the potential benefits of a study, as well as its potential risks. The benefits of the Milgram study are clear. It demonstrates the power of the situation and the extent to which people will obey figures of authority. Many would argue that it sheds light on some of the darkest chapters in modern history, including the Holocaust. There were, however, potential risks to participants in this study. They were placed in an extremely stressful situation and likely learned disturbing information about their own behavioral tendencies. Moreover, it seems as if that they were unable to discontinue their participation during the course of the study since statements such as, “I won’t go on any further” were ignored by the researcher and led to increased pressure to continue. Milgram did conduct a thorough debriefing of his participants, in which he revealed the nature of the study’s deception, explained why it was essential, and attempted to assuage any concerns or negative feelings on the part of participants. Follow-up with the participants indicated that they experienced no long-term ill effects from the study, and in fact, most of them said they were glad to have participated. Nonetheless, the Milgram study remains controversial when it comes to questions of research ethics.
Links For Further Investigation
The Milgram study is one of the most famous research investigations in psychology, if not all of the social sciences. For more details on Stanley Milgram, including a biography, quotes, and little known facts, see http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.html. You can also find a list of links related to Milgram at http://elvers.stjoe.udayton.edu/history/people/Milgram.html.
Another classic social psychological demonstration of the power of the situation is Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. This study is often mentioned in the same breath as Milgram’s, as it lends itself to similar discussions regarding real-world implications and ethics in social psychological research. You can check out the details of Zimbardo’s study at http://www.prisonexp.org/.