Aim: To investigate the extent to which people would obey an authority figure, even if it meant harming another person.
Social Approach
Psychology Notes
A Level/AS Level/O Level
Social Approach
The Milgram Experiment: When Authority Meets Obedience
Imagine this: You're told to give someone a painful electric shock, even though they're screaming in agony. Would you do it? The Milgram experiment aimed to understand just how far people would go to obey an authority figure, even when it went against their own morals.
The Setup:
-The Study: Participants were told they were taking part in a learning experiment. They were paired with a “learner” (actually an actor) who was strapped to a chair and wired up to a "shock machine."
-The Shocks: The participants were told to administer electric shocks to the learner every time they got an answer wrong. The shocks increased in intensity with each wrong answer, going from a mild 15 volts to a dangerous 450 volts.
-The Authority Figure: A stern experimenter, in a lab coat, instructed the participants to continue giving shocks, even as the learner cried out in pain and eventually fell silent.
The Shocking Results:
-Surprisingly High Obedience: Over 60% of the participants in the original experiment went all the way to the highest voltage, even though many were visibly distressed.
-The Power of Authority: The study showed that people are surprisingly likely to obey orders from an authority figure, even if those orders are unethical.
-The Importance of Proximal Factors: The experiment also showed that the proximity of the learner and the authority figure influenced obedience. Participants were more likely to disobey when the learner was in the same room or when the authority figure was not physically present.
The Aftermath and Controversies:
-Ethical Considerations: The Milgram experiment was criticized for its ethical implications. Participants were subjected to significant emotional distress and could have been permanently harmed by the experience.
-Real-World Implications: The Milgram experiment helps us understand real-world situations like the Holocaust and the My Lai Massacre, where individuals carried out horrific acts under the orders of authority figures.
-Understanding Obedience: Milgram's work remains important, sparking ongoing discussions about the nature of obedience, authority, and responsibility.
Think About It!
-How do you think you would have acted in the Milgram experiment?
-What factors do you think contribute to obedience?
-How can we use this knowledge to prevent future instances of harmful obedience?
It's important to remember that psychological research, like the Milgram experiment, can be unsettling, but it plays a crucial role in helping us understand the complexities of human behavior.
Bonus Notes
Milgram's Obedience Study: A Critical Analysis
1. Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses:
Strengths:
⭐Controlled environment: The laboratory setting allowed for manipulation of variables and control of extraneous factors.
⭐Standardized procedure: The experiment was highly structured, ensuring consistency and replicability.
⭐Quantitative data: The use of objective measures like shock levels provided quantifiable evidence of obedience.
Weaknesses:
⭐Artificial setting: The experiment's artificial nature limits generalizability to real-world situations.
⭐Ethical concerns: The potential for psychological harm to participants raised serious ethical questions.
⭐Demand characteristics: Participants may have been influenced by the experimenter's expectations, impacting results.
2. Social Influence:
⭐Peer pressure: The experiment didn't directly involve peer pressure, but the presence of other "teachers" likely influenced some participants.
⭐Group conformity: The experiment focused on obedience to authority, not group conformity, but the pressure to conform to the experimenter's expectations contributed to obedience.
3. Ethical Implications and Applications:
⭐Ethical concerns: The experiment raised ethical questions regarding informed consent, deception, and potential psychological harm.
⭐Real-world applications: The findings highlight the powerful influence of authority figures, explaining phenomena like genocide and blind obedience.
4. Sociocultural Factors and Generalizability:
⭐Cultural context: The study was conducted in the US during a specific historical period, raising questions about generalizability across cultures and time periods.
⭐Individual differences: Factors like personality and prior experiences could influence obedience, impacting the generalizability of findings.
5. Theoretical Perspectives:
⭐Social learning theory: Explains obedience through observation and imitation of the experimenter's behavior.
⭐Cognitive dissonance theory: Suggests participants experienced cognitive dissonance between their actions (obeying) and their beliefs (it's wrong to harm others), leading to justification of their behavior.
Conclusion:
Milgram's experiment remains a significant contribution to understanding obedience, but its methodology and ethical concerns need careful consideration. Its findings, though limited in generalizability, offer valuable insights into the power of authority and the potential for destructive obedience.