Milgrims Obedience Experiment Analysis - Case Study Example

Milgrim’s Obedience Experiment Part Stanley Milgrim who was a psychologist at Yale in a bid to find out the extent to which people were willing to obey authority conducted Milgrim’s obedience experiment in early 19601. This was after the start of prosecution of World War II criminals who had participated in mass murder of millions of people because of what is believed to be out of obedience. The experiment was aimed at measuring the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who ordered them to perform certain actions, which were contrary to their personal conviction and ethically wrong. Jerry burger who works at Santa Clara University in 2009 performed a similar experiment to determine whether the findings of Milgrim had changed with time. Similarities between Milgrim’s obedience study and Burger’s replication The two experiments involved a lot of deception on the participants involved and they resulted to infliction of emotional pain on the participants. The participants were deceived to believe that they were administering electric shock to other participants with encouragement of the experimenter who acted as the authority figure. Deception was the only way to carry out the experiment since it could not be performed on live human beings as it could result in many deaths. It emerged in the two experiments that majority of the people were willing to administer the electric shock on their counterparts out of obedience to authority despite the fact that they felt it was inhuman. However, the process was not so easy to the participants and as it emerged later they endured a lot of emotional pain as they strived to obey the authority figures. The methodology used by Burger was largely similar to the one used by Milgrim in his experiment. They both involved the participants being taken to a room where they were introduced to experimenters and confederate who were white men in their mid 30’s and 50’s respectively. The experimenters would then inform the participants the reason for the research, for example in Burger’s case the participants were told that the experiment was about the effects of punishment among learners in learning institutions. After signing a consent form the participants would be taken to another room where the confederate would be connected to an electric shock generator. The participant would then be informed that he will be administering shock at increasing rate to the confederate for every wrong answer given based on pre-determined questions. The participant would then hear increasing yells from the confederate every time he administered the electric shock up to the time he reached the 150-volt switch or the 450-volt switch. The experiment would end at this level and the participant would be informed immediately that the shock generator was a fake one and he would be taken to the confederate to ascertain that he was not harmed in any way. The two experiments seem to agree that the key to obedience has little to do with the authority figure’s style but instead people are likely to follow commands if the source seems to be legitimate. People are thus likely to follow commands from certain people whom the society has socialized to be obeyed; for example, people are likely to obey commands from teachers, parents, police officers and other people who are deemed legitimate. The two experiments are believed to have been awarded legitimacy by their association with the university and science subject hence majority of the participants believed they were legitimate. Furthermore, the expertise of the experimenters might have contributed either directly or indirectly to the participants approving the exercise as being legitimate. Differences between Milgrim’s obedience study and Burger’s replication The procedure especially the one related to treatment of participants used by Burger in his replication study slightly differed with the procedure used by Milgrim. This is because the ethical standards for treatment of participants have changed over time and thus Burger could not be legally allowed to use the same procedure. As a result, he stopped the experiment at the 150-volt switch instead of allowing the participants to move on to the 450-volt switch used by Milgrim. Stopping the experiment at 150-volt switch meant the participants were exposed to lesser stress, which was in the limit of the legal restriction. Burger in his replication experiment took care not to use too much deception as it was used in the initial exercise. Participants were screened to eliminate individuals who exhibited familiarity with the study and those who had previously studied psychology for at least two classes were excluded from the experiment. Participants were also screened for those who may be more susceptible to stress and emotional distress in order to avoid inflicting stress which they were unable to handle2. As a result, they were exposed to some questions regarding mental health and emotional well-being and those who answered affirmatively were excluded. Participants also underwent through a number of scales, which measured the level of anxiety, the feeling and the degree of acceptance of control measures. At the end of the exercise, a psychologist who further identified the individuals who exhibited negative reaction from the exercise interviewed the participants. The identified individuals were then taken through a healing process to restore emotional normalcy in them. Milgrim used male participants only in his experiment whereas Burger was gender sensitive and he thus used both male and female participants. Burger actually used more female participants than males probably to determine whether the results varied from one gender to another. As a result, there were slight variations in burger’s results since in real terms around 80 percent of Milgrim’s sample obeyed whereas only 62 percent of Burger’s male sample obeyed. The samples used in the two studies also differed in terms of ethnicity since Milgrim did not use an ethnic diverse population probably because at that time no data existed on ethnic distribution of people. On the hand Burger used an ethnically diverse population which was composed of Hispanics, white and Asian Americans. Part 2 Shortcomings in the design of the study The design of the study in Milgrim’s case provided the participants with little allowance to disobey the commands given by the authority figure in the experimenter. This is because the participants were not given the option of leaving the study once they consented to undergo through the experiment. If the option existed, it was not communicated well to the participants at the start of the exercise and furthermore some might have endured the process in order not to lose the amount given to them. The design of the experiments to apply deception on the participants may not have been the best approach to conduct the experiment. This is because the people end up feeling cheated and taken advantage of and as it was in the case in the studies it results to depression. The depression if not well controlled may affect the people’s future response to similar situations since they will be lacking trust and will thus be fearing being taken advantage of again. Possible solutions to the shortcomings The design of the experiment ought to be in such a way that the participants will be well informed at the beginning of the exercise that they can leave if they feel so. They also need to be assured that they will not lose the compensation if they leave and there will be no any problem with such a decision. This will make it easier for the participants to resist the authority when they feel their personal beliefs are being challenged and thus the whole process will be fair and transparent to all people. There are other alternatives to using deception that do not make people feel cheated and taken advantage of by the experimenter. For example, the design of the experiment could be in such a way that observations are made on the way different group of people respond to authority without them knowing they are being examined. Such a process is likely to yield accurate results since it will be a well representative of the way people obey or disobey commands that are contrary to their beliefs. Conclusion It is evident that Burger’s study was a partial replication of Milgrim’s obedience experiment that was conducted to ascertain whether the way people respond to authority had changed with time. It is clear that since Burger’s study is only partial replications there are similarities as well as differences between the two experiments. The results from the two experiments are thus similar to a larger extent despite the variations in the replication implying people tend to obey legitimate commands regardless of whether they agree with them or not. Bibliography Hesse-Biber, SN, and Patricia, L. The Practice of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2011. Rubenfeld, S, Medicine After the Holocaust: From the Master Race to the Human Genome and Beyond. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Read More