Stanley Milgram's Obedience Study

Stanley Milgram’s (1963) Obedience study is widely known in the field of psychology. This study is particularly distinct because the findings of the study were surprising to public and ethical procedure of the study was controversial. Stanley Milgram (1963) conducted this particular experimented to examine the how far individuals obey an authority. His goal was to find an explanation of Natzi killings in World War II. He recruited male participants through newspaper advertising. The participants were “randomly selected” to be the teacher, while the confederate was assigned to the role of the learner. The learner was in a room strapped to a chair that delivered shocks. The participant was directed to press a button and deliver a shock to the
learner (if the learner answers a question wrong)by experimenter. The switch to the shocks ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts in 15-volt increments. However, the learner did not receive any physical shocks. As certain “shocks were delivered” the participants heard noises and expressions of desire to stop the receiving shocks, however the experimenter insisted the participants keep delivering the shocks. Milgram conducted 17 versions of this experiment with different manipulation of the situational factors. Milgram found that 65% of the participants reached the 450 volts mark, and all of the participants reached up to the 300 volt.
Milgram's finding was intriguing, because the majority participants obeyed an authority figure, believing that they were an accomplice. Milgram (1974) explained that people have two state behaviors in social situations: an autonomous state and argentic state. Autonomous state is when people direct and take responsibility for their own actions. Agentic state is when people allow other individuals to influence their actions, and attribute responsibility to another individuals. Milgram further stated that for an individual to be “in” agentic state, the authority has to be perceived as qualified or legitimate to give orders and the perceiver have to believe that the they are free from responsibility and consequences.
Although this explanation was found to be reasonable and the findings were interesting, the study has been criticized for ethical reasons. Orne & Holland (1968) first noted that the sample might not be representative of the sample, since all the participants were men and from a certain area in the US (McLeod, 2007). Second, the use of deception was criticized, but Milgram noted that it was necessary and that 83.7% of the participants stated that they “glad to in the experiment”. Third, critiques noted that participants were exposed to a stressful situation which may cause psychological harm (McLeod, 2007). Milgram defended by noting that these effects only had in short-term effects and all participants were debriefed. Other critics questioned whether participants were provided the fair opportunities to withdraw from the study (McLeod, 2007). In argument, Milligram noted that it was essential for the experimenter to insist that participants continue in delivering shocks, in order to replicate real life situations.
Ethical guidelines in the process of conducting an experiment have changed since then the original Milgram study, thus researchers who attempted to replicate the study have modified methods and procedures of their studies.
In 2009 Burger replicated the Milgram experiment in Santa Clara University. He noted that he made several modification to the design of the study. First he acknowledged that he did not let participants go past the 150 volts shock. Second he thoroughly screened potential participants who possibly might experience any negative effects from this study. The screening included taking, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck depression Inventory, and being interviewed in the guidelines of Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Third participants were provided the option to withdraw from the study, two times in writing and without being denied the 50 dollars offered to participate in the study. Fourth, participants were made to feel a 15-volt shock so that participants create a mental scale of degree of shocks the other “participant” might be experiencing. In the original study participants were sampled to feel a 45-volt shock. Sixth, he noted participants were debriefed as soon as the experiment was concluded. Seventh, He noted that the experimenter was a trained clinical psychologists, so that experimenter could stop the study as soon as they notice the participants was in any harm. Lastly, he noted that this experiment was approved by Santa Clara
University Institutional Review Board.
Of the five general principles of the APA guidelines, Beneficence and nonmaleficence, Justice, and Respect for people’s Rights and Dignity could be fit in the ethical issues of Milgram study.
Principle A, Beneficence and nonmaleficence fits because this principle is stated to protect the safety and well-being of the participants in the study. We can assume this protection includes for short-term and long-term well-being of participants. However, in Milgram’s original study and in the replicated version, participants psychological well-being is risks, as the participants are exposed to a stressful situation, even if it may seem those effects are reversible. Principle D, Justice, is also fitting for this case because it states that psychologists need to be aware of their biases and boundaries of their competence. In this case, the experimenters in this study set out to find explanations for a social phenomenon, thus they design this study expecting a certain outcome. It could be that experimenter's expectancy played a role in outcome of the study. Perhaps, other factors could have equally attributed to social phenomenon, such as the Natzi killings, but Milligram just happened to find a fitting
explanation.
Principle E, Respect for People's Rights and Dignity could be applicable to this case because psychologists are to respect the worth of all people, rights to privacy confidentiality, and self-determination of all individuals. Moreover, this principle also states that psychologists are to be aware factors that might impair individuals autonomous decisions. In the case of Milgram's original, it could be argued the confidentiality and privacy of participants might have been violated. Participants were deceived to believe that they may or may be videotaped in both studies before they began, but all participants were videotaped. This could possibly break the confidentiality agreement between experimenters and participants. Moreover, it could be argued that the autonomy of the participants was violated as they were insisted to choose one option over the other, even though they might have shown signs of hesitation. Overall, Milgram's study, or other replications of Milgram's study are not with the exact accordance with some elements of the ethical guidelines. However, in those studies, the debriefing aspect may be what allowed researches to think that it can negate the listed ethical dilemmas. Additionally, it could also be the belief that, the overall benefits from study is greater than the overall risk, that allows researchers to continue with the experiment. However, with the present ethical guidelines, perhaps psychologists are induced to find or create safer experimental designs that do not negatively affect participants well-being.