MILGRAM’S STUDY

It’s been criticised that his study lacks experimental (internal) and ecological (external) validity.

Lacks Internal Validity

• Orne + Holland: They were ‘going along with the act’ when they ‘shocked’ the learner claimed
• They were pretending to be distressed in order to please the experimenter

REBUTTAL by Milgram

• He used films as visual evidence containing some of his investigations to show

that Ps were going under extreme stress

• Referred to post-experimental interviews and Qnnaires to support his belief that

majority of the Ps believed they were shocking people

Lacks External Validity

• Orne + Holland: They challenged the generalizability of Milgram’s findings and claimed that his
lab experiment bore little resemblance to real life situations where obedience is required

REBUTTAL by Milgram

• His procedures have been replicated in other countries showing that there are different levels of
obedience in different countries.
E.g. High = Australia Low = Germany

• Shanab & Yahya 1977 - Jordanian study: children 6-16 yrs displayed HIGH levels of obedience,
73% believed they were administering the full 450 volts.

Commentary

• Hence, there is plenty of evidence to support Milgram’s argument that high levels of obedience
can be obtained other than in his own lab.

• Hofling et al (1966) also seems to support the ecological validity for Milgram’s findings, by
showing that BLIND obedience to an authority figure could occur just as readily in real life.

• Rank & Jacobson’s study does later question the ecological validity of the Hofling Study
HOFLING et al – obedient nurses (1966)

• Nurse = participant, were phoned by an UNKNOWN doctor, told to administer 20 mgs of an

UNKNOWN drug called ‘Astroten’ to a patient.

• If the nurses obeyed, they would be breaking several hospital rules:

- handing twice the max. dose allowable for the drug

- giving a drug that wasn’t on the ward stock list for that day
- taking instructions over the phone by an unfamiliar person
- acting without a SIGNED order from a doctor (a real one preferably)

• 21 out of 22 Ps began to give medication (harmless placebo) until another hidden nurse stopped
them.

• When interviewed, the nurses justified their actions: They’ve been asked to do this many times
before, and that doctors became annoyed if they refused.

What did the study show?

• That there are high levels of obedience can be obtained in real life settings and so appeared to
provide support for the ecological validity of Milgram’s findings.

Rank & Jacobson: Nurses Rebel

Their criticisms included of the Hofling’s study included:

• The nurses had no knowledge of the drug

• Had no opportunity to seek advice from NE1 of = status or higher status

• In most hospital situations, they argued, nurses would have had knowledge of a drug or would
have at least the time to seek advice

They replicated his procedure but this time:

• Nurses used common drug – Valium at 3X the recommended level

• The doctor telephoned used a real identity
• Nurses were able to confer with other nurses b4 they proceeded

RESULTS - This time 2 out of 18 prepared the medication as requested

Conclusion:

• Nurses are aware of the toxic effects of a drug and are allowed to interact naturally
• They will not administer a medication simply coz a physician orders it
Bickman (1974): the power of uniforms

Found that VISIBLE symbols of authority, e.g. uniforms INCREASED levels of obedience
It’s a field study, based on an opportunity sample

Procedure:

• 3 male experimenters dressed in either a uniform (milkman/guard) or as a civilian (coat & tie)
made requests of passers-by in a street in NY.
E.g. they might ask them to pick a bag for them or provide money for a parking meter

• People were most likely to obey the experimenter who was dressed as a civilian. The strength of
this study is due to its REAL-LIFE SETTING.

• But, the opportunity sample of Ps (those that just happened to be passing by) may have affected
the results, including the location – New York

What did this study show?

Nevertheless, the results support Milgram’s findings where higher levels of obedience occurred at the
visibly prestigious Yale University than at the run-down office in Bridgeport.

The factors that CAUSE obedience from people

• Legitimate Authority
• Gradual Commitment
• Buffers
• Agency Theory
• Personality Factors

LEGITIMATE THEORY

• We feel obligated to obey those in power because we respect their

credentials and assume thy know what they are doing for the best

• Authority figures whose role is defined by society holds legitimate social

power

• People like Officer Dibble (from Top Cat) and MPs hold legitimate social power, therefore they have the right
to exert control over the behaviour of the public. We mostly accept it. (refer to Hofling et al)

• Danger Zone: Sometimes the rule for obeying these authority figures becomes deeply ingrained into us that
we forget to assess their decisions if it morally and ethically matches out own conscious decisions.

• Milgram’s original experiment: Prestigious Yale Uni – contains more influence (authority/power) over people
than a run-down building. Bickman’s Study: People obey those with visible signs of authority (uniforms)

• Respect for authority VARIES from different countries. E.g. Australia holds a greater tradition of questioning
authority than was the case in the USA in early 1960s.

• Yet, Mantel (1971) found 85% obedience levels in Germany

GRADUAL COMMITMENT

• Psychologists called it the ‘foot-in-the-door’ effect. In Milgram’s ‘shocking’

experiment, they didn’t know when to stop the shocks coz it increased in small amounts
every time

• Occurs due to the desire to be consistent. People felt ‘contracted’ to help with the
study.

• They had this self-perception as helpful people aiding scientific research, they did not want to
taint this image, therefore continued

BUFFERS

• ‘Buffer’ protects a person from having to face the consequences of their actions in a situation

• Milgram suggested that buffers act like a mechanism to reduce the strain of obeying an unethical
or immoral command. So buffers simply really make obeying easier.

• Milgram’s original study: the ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ were in different rooms, the ‘teacher’ was
buffered (protected) from having to see his victim.

AGENCY THEORY

• People operate on 2 levels: 1) as autonomous (independent) individuals

2) on the agentic level – seeing themselves as the agents of others & not
responsible for their own actions

• Agentic shift (from auto to age) means individuals attribute responsibility for their own actions
to the person in authority – NO LONGER SELF-DIRECTED

• Milgram believed that the agentic level explained the behaviour of his Ps- they denied personal
responsibility, claiming they were only doing what they were told

What causes people to undergo the agentic shift?

• Part of socialisation process – we have been trained since an early age to obey at home, school
and in society. Many rules & regulations have been reinforced to ensure obedience (LAWS)

• We tend to accept all this coz they are seen to be reasonable and appropriate

• Other FACTORS for obedience include:

- fear of appearing rude/arrogant by disrupting a well-defined social situation e.g. a lab experiment,
requires courage and etiquette manners

- fear of increasing one’s anxiety levels (e.g. the Ps in Milgram’s experiment, they were stressed out in
deciding whether they should challenge the authority figure
PERSONALITY FACTORS

Authoritarian personality – a person that has RIGID beliefs, is intolerant and yet submissive to those in
authority.
- Milgram (1974) found that Ps who were highly authoritarian tended to give stronger shocks than those
who were less authoritarian.

Psychopathic personality – Miale and Selzer (1975) claimed that the obedience of Milgram’s Ps was a
socially acceptable expression of their psychopathic (violent & psychologically disordered) impulses.

Milgram countered this account completely. He reminded us that when Ps were able to select their own
voltage levels, they gave lower levels of shock.