Milgram (1963): Obedience to Authority

Procedure
Milgram wanted to demonstrate that obedience could be produced in anyone. Firstly, he
advertised for 500 men to take part in an experiment studying memory, from 500 who
replied he selected 40 to take part. The participants were brought to Yale University and
greeted by an experimenter (confederate). Participants were given an introduction
explaining the investigation as a study of the links between punishment and learning.
There was a fixed lottery which assigned the role of “teacher” to the genuine participants
and “learner” to the fake participants. The learners were strapped into chairs with
electrodes attached to their bodies and the teacher was given a sample shock. The teacher
was then shown the “shock generator” which they would be in charge of and expected to
use to inflict electric shocks upon the learners if they answered incorrectly- each wrong
answer intensified the shock. Milgram observed. If the teacher refused to inflict
punishment he was “prodded”. When the shock reached 300 volts the learner was
scripted to pound on the wall. Once over the participants were debriefed and the true
nature of experiment revealed. Interviews and a questionnaire were conduced following
the experiment.

Results
The results shocked Milgram- the levels of obedience exceeded his expectations. The
participant’s reactions were characteristic- sweating, trembling, digging fingers in flesh
etc. Extremes were also presents- nervous laugher, seizures and a violent fit. 84% felt
glad to have participated and 74% said they had learnt about themselves, only one person
felt sorry they had participated. Milgram proposed a general theory of obedience called
Agency Theory- people operate in two states: automous state- freethinking and accepting
consequences of actions, and, agentic state- attributing responsibility for actions on
authority figures. He found that it was easy to switch between these states- agentic shift-
because from an early age we are socialised to be obedient to authority. The theory does
not, however, explain why participants continued to be obedient when it became obvious
that the pain they were inflicting was harmful. So, Milgram argued that binding factors
(fear of appearing rude or breaking etiquette) caused participants to continue.
Furthermore, if the participant was scared then they were unlikely to challenge authority.
He also suggested that buffers provided protection (in not accepting the consequences of
their actions) thus preventing them from feeling the strain of obeying unethical orders. He
argued that the behavioural symptoms of participants were due to internal conflicts as
values were in opposition- to obey authority and not to harm others- as well as conflict
between experimenter and victim- scientific authority and basic humanity.