Experimenter's Role and Results of the Milgram Study

Experimenter's Job

The experimenter in the Milgram experiment played a crucial role in maintaining the study's standardization and pushing participants to continue. Key aspects of their job included:

1. Providing only standardized feedback to the teacher $participant$.
2. Instructing the teacher to treat no response from the learner as a wrong answer and administer a shock.
3. Using four specific prods when the teacher refused to continue: "Please continue" "The experiment requires that you continue" "It is absolutely essential that you continue" "You have no other choice, you must go on"

Highlight: The use of standardized prods was crucial for maintaining experimental consistency and allowing for replication of the study.

Results of the Milgram Experiment

The Milgram experiment results were both surprising and disturbing, revealing a high level of obedience to authority even when it conflicted with personal moral values. Key findings include:

1. All participants believed they were administering real shocks, as confirmed by post-study interviews.
2. Physical signs of distress were observed in participants, including nervous laughter, stuttering, sweating, and in one case, a seizure that led to the termination of that particular session.
3. No participant stopped before reaching 300V.
4. 14 participants were classified as not obedient, refusing to continue at various points: 5 refused at 300V 4 refused at 315V 2 refused at 330V 1 each refused at 345V, 360V, and 375V
5. 26 out of 40 participants $65$ were obedient to the end, administering the maximum 450V shock.

Definition: Obedience in the context of this study was defined as willingness to administer shocks up to the maximum voltage of 450V.

Conclusions

Milgram drew several important conclusions from these results:

1. The volunteer nature of participation may have created a sense of obligation to help the experimenter.
2. The prestigious setting of Yale University likely increased participants' trust in the ethical nature of the study.
3. The study revealed a conflict between moral principles and the tendency to obey authority figures.
4. The gradual increase in shock intensity made it easier for participants to continue, as each increment seemed small.
5. Milgram argued that situational factors play a crucial role in influencing behavior, often overriding personal moral convictions.

Quote: Milgram stated, "The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."

Evaluation of the Milgram Experiment

The Milgram experiment has been subject to extensive evaluation and critique since its publication. This evaluation focuses on key aspects such as generalizability, reliability, and practical applications.

Generalizability

The generalizability of the Milgram experiment results has been a subject of debate:

1. The use of volunteers may have skewed results towards higher obedience, as volunteers are more likely to take instructions seriously.
2. The sample size of 40 participants, while relatively large for a psychological experiment, may still be influenced by individual anomalies.
3. The androcentric sample $all male$ limits generalizability to women.
4. The study's American context raises questions about its applicability to other cultures.

Example: Cultural variations of the Milgram study have been conducted, showing high levels of obedience across different cultures. For instance, Meeus & Raaijmakers $1986$ found 92% obedience in the Netherlands using verbal insults instead of electric shocks.

Reliability

The Milgram experiment procedure has been praised for its reliability:

1. Milgram conducted 19 variations of his baseline study between 1961-1962, demonstrating reproducibility.
2. Parts of the study were filmed, allowing for inter-rater reliability checks.
3. Standardized procedures, including the use of specific "prods" and pre-recorded learner responses, enhanced reliability.

Highlight: Burger $2009$ replicated aspects of Variations 5, 8, and 17 of the original Milgram study, further supporting its reliability.

However, criticisms have emerged:

Quote: Gina Perry $2012$ claimed that "Milgram was only strict about the 'prods' in the first study and afterwards the experimenter was free to improvise," potentially compromising standardization.

Practical Applications

The findings of the Milgram obedience study have significant real-world applications:

1. They can be used to develop strategies for increasing obedience in schools, workplaces, and prisons.
2. The study highlights the importance of ethical leadership and the potential dangers of blind obedience to authority.
3. It provides insights into how to resist unethical orders and the importance of questioning authority.

Ethical Considerations

The Milgram experiment ethical issues have been widely discussed:

1. Participants experienced significant psychological distress during and after the experiment.
2. The use of deception raised questions about informed consent.
3. The study's findings led to important debates about research ethics and the treatment of human subjects.

Definition: Ethical issues in psychological research refer to the moral dilemmas and considerations that arise when conducting studies involving human participants.

In conclusion, the Milgram experiment remains a cornerstone of social psychology, providing valuable insights into human behavior under authority. While its methodology has been criticized, its findings continue to influence our understanding of obedience and have important implications for society at large.

Background and Aim of the Milgram Experiment

The Milgram experiment was designed to investigate the factors that led to the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. Stanley Milgram, the researcher behind this groundbreaking study, sought to understand why Nazi soldiers claimed they were "just following orders" when they participated in the mass murder of innocent people.

Aim of the Study

The primary aim of the Milgram experiment was to determine the level of obedience participants would exhibit when an authority figure instructed them to administer electric shocks to another person. This objective was crucial in understanding the psychological mechanisms behind obedience to authority, especially in morally challenging situations.

Experimental Design

The study employed a controlled observation method, as there was no independent variable manipulated. The dependent variable was obedience, which was operationalized as the maximum voltage administered $450V$. Participants who did not reach this maximum were considered disobedient.

Highlight: The study used various data collection methods, including interviews, photographs, and filming throughout the experimental sessions, providing rich qualitative data alongside quantitative measures.

Sample Selection

The study used volunteer sampling, recruiting participants through newspaper advertisements. The sample consisted of 40 males aged 20-50 from the New Haven area, representing various professions such as high school teachers, salesmen, and engineers.

Vocabulary: Androcentric - Focused on or centered on men; male-dominated.

Experimental Procedure

The experiment was conducted at Yale University, lending it an air of legitimacy and prestige. Key elements of the procedure included:

1. An experimenter portrayed as a 31-year-old biology teacher with a stern demeanor.
2. A "learner" $an actor$ who was a 47-year-old accountant trained for the role.
3. Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study, being told it was about "the effects of punishment on learning."
4. The participant $teacher$ was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner for incorrect answers, with voltage increasing after each error.
5. At 300V, the learner would pound on the walls, and after 315V, no response was given.

Example: To enhance realism, participants were given a sample shock of 45V at the beginning of the experiment.

Quote: When participants asked about the safety of the shocks, the experimenter replied that "no permanent tissue damage" would be caused.