Milgram's behavioural study of obedience (1963) – A Level Psychology Eduqas Revision

Milgram’s behavioural study of obedience (1963)

Stanley Milgram (1963) conducted a behavioural study of obedience.
The research aimed to examine the extent to which individuals would obey an authority figure, even when instructions conflicted with personal morals.
The study was held in response to the atrocities committed during the Second World War, aiming to understand how such obedience could occur.

The study was a controlled observation with the researcher acting as a ‘stooge’ who provided the orders.
The volunteers were led to believe that they were participating in a learning experiment involving the effect of punishment in learning.
Each participant played the role of a ‘teacher’ who had to administer electric shocks to a ‘learner’ (the stooge) every time they answered a question incorrectly.
The shock levels ranged from 15 volts (mild) to 450 volts (deadly), increasing with each wrong answer.

65% of participants continued to the maximum voltage of 450 volts, and all participants delivered shocks of at least 300 volts.
Participants exhibited signs of extreme stress and tension, but continued to follow orders when reassured by the experimenter.

Significant ethical criticisms were levelled at Milgram’s study due to the psychological harm caused to participants.
Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study and were not immediately debriefed after participation.
The study highlighted issues with informed consent, right to withdraw, and protection from harm in psychological research.

Milgram’s findings have had a profound impact on understanding of obedience to authority in social psychology.
They suggest that under certain circumstances, individuals may carry out harmful acts when instructed by an authority figure.
The study has contributed to research design ethics, prompting further consideration and discussion of the welfare of participants in psychological studies.

There are concerns about the ecological validity of the study, as it was a controlled observation in an artificial setting.
The presence of situational variables, such as the location being a prestigious Yale university, might have influenced participants’ behaviour.
Conversely, the study shows high internal validity, as it was able to manipulate and control for various factors.
The experiment has been replicated with similar results, demonstrating its reliability. However, ethical restrictions now limit the degree of replication of such study.