Procedure

Each participant, on arrival, was introduced to another participant (really a confederate of the experimenter). The confederate was an actor who played the role of an Irish American — most participants found him mild mannered and likeable. Participants were told that the study was on the effect of punishment on learning. Slips of paper were drawn to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner. This was rigged so that the participant was always the “teacher” (both slips contained the word “teacher”).

The learner and teacher were then shown the apparatus that would be used to deliver the shocks. It had 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The switches were also labelled with a description: Slight shock, through, strong shock and very strong shock, to “Danger, severe shock” and finally just XXX”.

The participant (teacher) was given a sample shock of 45 volts. This was to demonstrate to the participant that the generator was genuine (although it wasn’t).

The teacher and learner were taken to separate rooms. The learner had to learn a list of paired associates. In the recall task, the learner had to choose the correct response from 4 possible answers. He responded by pressing one of four switches. His response was displayed to the teacher on a panel above the shock generator.

When an incorrect response was given the teacher (participant) had to administer a shock. Each time an incorrect answer was given the participant was told to raise the shock level one step higher. The participant also had to announce the voltage before giving the shock. This makes sure the participant is aware of the shock level being given.

Feedback was given from the victim:

• At 180 volts the victim yells “I can’t stand the pain”
  
  
• At 270 volts he gives out an agonised scream and insists on being released
  
  
• At 300 volts he shouts out that he will no longer provide answers
  
  
• At 330 volts there is an ominous silence
  
  
  In some of the experiments the victim complains of a heart condition.
  

When the participant was reluctant to continue some verbal prods were given:

• Please continue
  
  
• The experiment requires that you continue
  
  
• It is absolutely essential that you continue
  
  
• You have no choice, you must go on

Results

Every teacher went up to 300 volts 62.5% went all the way up to 450 volts

Validity of the Milgram Study

Validity is the extent to which any test measures what it claims to measure. It can also relate to how true the findings of a study are. With regard to the Milgram experiment, are the results of the study a true reflection of how obedient people are. There are two types of validity that we will consider: internal and external Internal Validity

Internal Validity

Internal validity (sometimes called experimental realism) concerns what happens inside the experiment: does the experiment measure what it claims to measure.)

There are a number of issues with regard to internal validity and the Milgram study:

Did the participants believe they were really giving shocks?

According to Orne and Holland (1968), participants may have not believed they were giving real; if they were, surely the experimenter would have not allowed the study to continue. However, the participants experienced extreme stress and it would seem unlikely that this would happen if they did not believe they were giving real shocks: many participants, Milgram (1974) observed, “sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bite their lips, and dig their nails into their flesh. Full blown seizures were observed for 3 participants”. One experiment had to be stopped because of a violent seizure by a participant.

Other, more believable research has also supported Milgram’s findings. In a study by Sheridan & King (1972), participants had to train a puppy by giving it electric shocks (they were real this time, but small). Participants were led to believe they were increasing the shocks with each error. They could see the puppy and hear its squeals. Unbeknown to the participants, an anaesthetic was released in the puppy’s cage, which caused it to fall asleep.The participants were told that the puppy’s failure to respond was a punishable error and they should continue. The participants were distressed, and some cried, but 75% gave the maximum shock.

A field experiment by Hoffling et al (1966) demonstrated that obedience can occur in real life situations. 22 nurses participated, and were unaware they were taking part in a study. The study took place in a number of American hospitals. The nurses were telephoned by “Dr Smith”, a confederate of the experimenter, who told them to administer a 20mg dose of “Astrofen” to “Mr Jones”. He told the nurses that he was in a hurry and would sign the authorisation forms when he visited the ward in ten minutes time. The hospital code-ofconduct stated that the nurse required written authorisation before administrating any drug, and it should be made sure that it was a genuine doctor. In addition, the label of the Astrofen bottle stated that the maximum daily dose was 10mg. By giving the 20mg dose the nurse would be breaking the code of conduct and exceeding the maximum permitted dose. Of the 22 nurses in the control group who were asked what they would do in that situation 21 said that they would not have given the drug without authorisation; however, 21 of the 22 nurses in the experimental condition did administer the drug. 11 claimed that they did not notice the discrepancy in dosage.

External (ecological) Validity in the Milgram Study

External or ecological validity is the extent to which the findings of a piece of research are generalisable to real-life situations. Because Milgram’s research was carried out in a laboratory, it has been argued that it is artificial and people would not behave that way in a real situation. Nevertheless, it could be argued that experiments are real situations and an authority figure is an authority figure whether they are in a lab or elsewhere. This has been supported by research conducted in the field. Bickman (1974), for example, carried out a study where a stooge wearing a guard’s uniform asked pedestrians to either pick up a piece of paper or give a dime to a stranger. The obedience rate in this condition was 80%; however, when civilian clothes were worn, the obedience rate was 40%.