Understanding Ethics in Psychology The Milgram Experiment

Ethics In a small group discuss the following. Be prepared to share your answers in class. Were any of the following ethical guidelines violated? Explain how: Confidentiality Informed Consent Debriefing Deception Mental/physical stress and harm Are the findings of the study worth the ethical violations? Explain. Should this study be done again?

Background Milgram’s study focuses on human obedience to authority figures. He became interested in the topic in the 1960s when psychologists and society attempted to explain why the Holocaust occurred. The dominant theory to explain why the Holocaust happened was called “The Germans are Different Hypothesis.” This theory stated that the Holocaust occurred because all Germans have an inherited or learned character trait that causes them to be more likely to obey authority figures, regardless of what they are being asked to do.

The Germans are Different Hypothesis is a theory that argues that personality and character cause behaviour. Milgram DISAGREED. He believed the behaviour that led to the Holocaust was the result of the SITUATION and ANY PERSON from ANYWHERE would behave in a similar manner if in a similar situation.

His theory was called “Obedience to Authority Hypothesis” and he argued that any person would commit atrocities if an authority figure asked them to.

Think about it…

Milgram decided to use an experiment test his hypothesis. He put out an advert for a memory study and recruited forty males from the New Haven, Connecticut to participate in a study on memory at Yale University. The participants came from a wide variety of occupations, but were mainly Caucasian. Participants were paid $4.50 for participating, BUT the payment was for showing up to the lab and the participants would be paid regardless of what happened after they arrived.

Milgram created a fake shock generator which had 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts.

To make it extra realistic, Milgram put labels on the shock generator that labelled the level of shock the switch would give. The generator had buzzers, flashing lights, and moving dials. It could also give a 45 volt shock, which made everything appear genuine.

The experiment involved the participant meeting an experimenter who explained the experiment was to test the effect of punishment on learning. The participant met another “participant” (an actor who knew exactly what was going on) who would also be taking part in the experiment. The participant would be the teacher and the “participant” would be the learner. The role of teacher and learner would be determined by drawing straws. The experiment was controlled that the “participant” would always play the role of the learner.

The learner would be placed in a separate room from the experimenter and the teacher. The experimenter explained that the teacher would be giving mild electrical shocks to the learner. The experimenter emphasized that while the shocks could be quite painful, they would cause no permanent damage. The learner explained that he had a heart condition and the experimenter assured him that there would be no permanent damage. The teacher and the learner were given a mild shock to show how the machine worked and what the shocks would feel like.

The teacher was seated in front of the shock generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner. The learner was asked to learn the pairs. The teacher then tests the learner by giving him one of the words in a pair along with four other words. The learner has to pick the correct word to complete the pair. Each time the learner answered wrong, the teacher was to deliver a shock. For each answer wrong, the voltage also went up. No answer was a wrong answer. Both participants were reminded that they could quit at any time, no questions asked.

Milgram had the learner pre-record responses in a realistic fashion. As the experiment progressed the learner began to ask to quit and remind the experimenter and the teacher about his heart condition. At level 300, the learner banged on the wall and yelled in pain. From this point on the learner stopped answering. If the teacher asked the experimenter what to do, the experimenter would tell the teacher to continue using four prompts: “Please continue” or “Please go on” “The experiment requires that you continue.” “It is essential that you continue.” “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

So what happened? All 40 participant obeyed to 300 volts. 5 refused to continue. 4 gave one more shock then refused. 2 quit at 330 volts (2 more shocks). 1 quit at 345, 360, and 375. 65% gave shocks up to 450. 33% stopped before 450.

Are they evil? Consider the following: Do you look stressed, concerned, or upset about the situation? Do they want to quit? What’s stopping them?

Modern Footage – Eli Roth Original Footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ Modern Footage – Eli Roth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLfnwe4CgZ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMfQRGWFMmY

The most obedient participants were told to continue shocking at the highest level until the experiment was ended by the experimenter. All the participants who made it to this level heaved sighs of relief, shook their heads in regret, and asked about the learner. All the participants showed signs of nervousness and tension. They sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, groaned, and dug fingernails into flesh. Many experienced nervous laughter and full on laughing fits (14 out of the 40). Three participants experienced seizures. All the participants pointed out at one point that they didn’t want to hurt the learner. All the participants were convinced of the reality of the situation and believed the shocks they were inflicting were painful to the learner.

Analysis What type of research occurred? In your own words describe the hypothesis, the procedure, and results.

Reliability Originally, the study was not representative, but Milgram replicated his study in different parts of America, different countries (eventually Germany), and with different cultures, races, and genders. His reliability was consisted except for two situations: IF the experiment was not set in a lab setting, the obedience rate was 47%, and IF there were two teachers (one participant and one fake participant) obedience rates dropped significantly if the fake participant didn’t obey. Eli Roth and Derren Brown have both replicated the experiment in more modern times and have found consistent results.

Validity The experiment was very controlled, but lacks real world validity. We don’t know if people would behave this way in real world settings. As well, Milgram did not have a control group, which lowers validity. Other psychologists have attempted to make it more real world. Hoffling (1966) found that 21 out of 24 nurses were willing to give lethal drug doses to patients if told to by an authority figure. Sheridan and King (1972) had people give REAL shocks to a puppy. People obeyed when they could see the distress of the animal.