Psychological Experiments |
Milgram Obedience Project
Background
The Milgram Obedience Project was conducted in 1963 by an American psychologist named Stanley Milgram. The main purpose of the experiment was to find the extent to which one human being would harm another if given the order to do so, thus focusing on the conflict between a person's moral conscience and obedience.
Subject Selection
The subjects of this experiment were selected at random based on who answered the advertisement that Milgram had placed in a newspaper; the advertisement would have read something like, "WANTED: Adult males willing to partake in a learning study at Yale University in exchange for $4.50 for their participation."
In all, around 40 adult males were selected. Their jobs ranged from skilled to professional and were between the ages of 20- and 50-years-old.
In all, around 40 adult males were selected. Their jobs ranged from skilled to professional and were between the ages of 20- and 50-years-old.
The Experiment
Once the subjects - the volunteer participants - were selected, each one was knowingly paired with one of Milgram's colleagues - under the identity of Mr. Wallace - who was pretending to be another participant. Then, there was a draw between the two participants of each pair in order to determine who would be the "learner" and who would be the "teacher"; the draw, however, was fixed so that the volunteer participant would always be the "teacher" and Mr. Wallace the "learner".
Next, Mr. Wallace would be taken into a separate room from the volunteer participant and have electrodes attached to his arms. Meanwhile, the volunteer participant would be taken into the neighbouring room in which sat an electric shock generator. This generator had a panel of switches that ranged from 15 volts (slight shock) to 375 volts (Danger: severe shock) to 450 volts (XXX) with increments in between to total up to 30 switches.
Mr. Wallace is then given a list of word pairs to memorize; after Mr. Wallace has memorized the word pairs, the teacher then begins to test him. The "teacher" says a word that was on the list given to Mr. Wallace, and he must respond with its corresponding partner from a list of four possible choices. For each mistake the learner makes, the teacher administers an ever-increasing level of shock.
Mr. Wallace gave primarily incorrect answers in order to force the teacher to give a higher and higher level of shock. If the teacher refused to administer a shock, an outside person known as Mr. Williams would give a series of orders, reading the next one if the first is not obeyed, that are as follow:
Next, Mr. Wallace would be taken into a separate room from the volunteer participant and have electrodes attached to his arms. Meanwhile, the volunteer participant would be taken into the neighbouring room in which sat an electric shock generator. This generator had a panel of switches that ranged from 15 volts (slight shock) to 375 volts (Danger: severe shock) to 450 volts (XXX) with increments in between to total up to 30 switches.
Mr. Wallace is then given a list of word pairs to memorize; after Mr. Wallace has memorized the word pairs, the teacher then begins to test him. The "teacher" says a word that was on the list given to Mr. Wallace, and he must respond with its corresponding partner from a list of four possible choices. For each mistake the learner makes, the teacher administers an ever-increasing level of shock.
Mr. Wallace gave primarily incorrect answers in order to force the teacher to give a higher and higher level of shock. If the teacher refused to administer a shock, an outside person known as Mr. Williams would give a series of orders, reading the next one if the first is not obeyed, that are as follow:
- Please continue.
- The experiment requires you to continue.
- It is absolutely essential that you continue.
- You have no other choice but to continue.
Results and Conclusions
Out of the 40 participants, 26 reached the highest voltage or "XXX". All of the participants reached at least 300 volts. These results show that ordinary people will likely obey an authority figure, regardless of the consequences to another human being.
Later, Milgram summed up the experiment by saying:
“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
Later, Milgram summed up the experiment by saying:
“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
Relation to WWII and Nazi Germany
The main objective of the entire experiment was to examine the reasons that accused war criminals gave in their defense during the Nuremberg Trials; frequently, the claim from many was that they were only acting on what they were told to do by superiors. This experiment proved that their defenses were viable and could have been the true reason behind why the they did what they did.