Sample Answer
Understanding Obedience Through Milgram’s Study on Authority
Introduction
Social influence is a fundamental aspect of human behaviour, shaping how individuals think, act, and respond to others. Among its major forms, conformity, compliance, and obedience, obedience stands out as one of the most striking, particularly when individuals follow orders that conflict with their moral principles. This essay discusses Stanley Milgram’s (1963) obedience study, a landmark experiment that illustrates how authority can compel ordinary people to commit acts they might otherwise consider wrong.
The Concept of Obedience
Obedience refers to a type of social influence where individuals follow direct commands, usually from someone perceived as an authority figure. Unlike conformity, which involves changing behaviour to fit in with a group, obedience is driven by hierarchy and perceived legitimacy of power. It plays a vital role in maintaining social order but can also lead to unethical outcomes when authority is misused (McLeod, 2017).
Milgram’s Study of Obedience (1963)
In 1963, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most famous and controversial studies in psychology at Yale University. The aim was to investigate whether individuals would obey an authority figure, even when instructed to harm another person.
Method
Forty male participants, aged between 20 and 50, were recruited through newspaper advertisements. They were told the study was about the effects of punishment on learning. Each participant was assigned the role of a “teacher,” while a confederate (an actor) played the “learner.” The learner was placed in another room and connected to an apparent electric shock generator.
The “teacher” was instructed by an authority figure wearing a lab coat (symbolising scientific legitimacy) to deliver increasingly strong electric shocks whenever the learner gave a wrong answer. In reality, no shocks were administered, but pre-recorded sounds made the situation seem real. The shocks ranged from 15 volts (labelled “slight shock”) to 450 volts (“danger: severe shock”).
Findings
A shocking 65% of participants administered the maximum 450 volts, despite showing visible signs of distress such as sweating, trembling, and nervous laughter (Milgram, 1963). Almost all participants hesitated or questioned the authority figure, but when told “the experiment requires that you continue,” most obeyed.
Conclusion
Milgram concluded that people are likely to obey orders from authority figures, even if it means acting against their conscience. The experiment revealed how situational factors, such as the presence of an authoritative figure and the institutional setting, can strongly influence obedience levels.
Critical Discussion
Milgram’s study has been praised for its insight into human behaviour, particularly in explaining events such as atrocities committed under authoritarian regimes. It demonstrated that obedience is not limited to inherently cruel individuals but can arise from normal psychological processes like the agentic state, when people see themselves as agents executing another’s wishes rather than acting on their own (Milgram, 1974).
However, the experiment faced criticism on ethical grounds. Participants were deceived about the nature of the shocks and experienced significant emotional stress. The British Psychological Society (BPS, 2018) would likely consider such procedures unethical today due to the lack of informed consent and psychological harm.
Further replications have supported Milgram’s findings, including Burger’s (2009) modern version, which used lower voltage levels and improved ethics. Burger found that 70% of participants were still willing to continue past the 150-volt level, suggesting that obedience to authority remains strong even in contemporary settings.
Relevance and Implications
Milgram’s findings have far-reaching implications. In workplaces, military settings, and institutions, authority figures can influence behaviour significantly. Understanding obedience helps organisations develop ethical policies and promote responsible leadership that encourages questioning of harmful orders. It also highlights the importance of individual moral responsibility in hierarchical systems.
