Abstract

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, performed one of the most famous studies conducted at the time, in 1963. Stanley Milgram was very interested in the effects of interactions on behavior. In his experiment, he wanted to test the limits of the participant's compliance and obedience, under conditions of extreme distress. Milgram wanted to have a better understanding of how far people would go to obey orders given by someone in an authority role; even if that meant that, the orders contradicted their personal beliefs. The subjects of the study believed they had to obey what the authority figure's guidance that was conveyed to them. The guidelines were to shock other participants ultimately if they answered incorrectly; even silence was an incorrect answer. The experiment, to this day, is one that is studied, because it showed how many people, no matter gender, economic stance, or race, would inflict pain, and even death, to obey someone who has more authority than they do. The subjects were given a set of rules to abide by. The study was to see how the subjects responded to the effects of punishment on memory.

The Milgram Experiment
There were two main pieces of this study; there was the "learner" and the "experimenter". There was a list of teachers, the teachers were told to give shocks to the learners, the shocks were not real, and however, the participants did not know this. The participants thought the students were being shocked with high amounts of volts, with that knowledge, some obeyed what Milgram or the authority figure, told them. “Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used - one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.” (Milgram, 1963).
Within the hypothesis, there are four levels of variations. Each unique variation involved the same basic testing. The participants, or respondents labeled as "teachers", were given orders to inflict punishments on upon the learners. The learners, also participants, however, they are the test subjects, were to be shocked when they answered incorrectly. The teachers were advised to that silence was an omission for an incorrect answer. As each learner responded incorrectly, the degree of shock was stronger, from 75 volts as minimal, up to 450 volts as the maximum. Unbeknownst to the teachers, the learner was acting as if they were being shocked. Null and Alternative Hypothesis (Ho)The Null hypothesis: under what conditions people would carry out the commands even if that meant inflicting pain upon another individual just because they were ordered to.
(Ha)Alternative hypothesis: Most would not carry out the plan, because they would not want to inflict pain on another human being.

Variations within the study
There were different types of experiment variations, rather various types of independent sample t-tests:
Level one variation:
Independent sample; the first test was to see how the teacher responded to the direction from the authority figure. The authority figure had to relay continuously to the teacher to continue. Meaning, they were not obedient.
Level two variation:
Independent sample: the teacher became rebellious to the authority figure. With that result, the individuals who fit in with the rebellious respondents were kept in a room together, non-compliant with the experiment.
Level three variation:
Independent sample: Proximity. The teachers were in the same room as the learner; however, they could not see the authority figure. The teachers in this variation were forced to place the learner’s hands on the shock plate and administer the shock.
Level four variation:
Independent sample: Perception. The teachers were paired with a lesser authority figure, were told to administer the shock to the learner. However, they did not.
Population Mean
The participants that were recruited were 40 males, between the ages of 20 and 50, they ranged from unskilled to professional. Ethnicity was not a factor within this study. All participants were compensated for roles and their time.
Results
The results are shocking, it showed that more than half of the individuals who participated in the study would obey the order put forth down. Out of the 40 individuals, a staggering 65% of the participants followed through with the orders and administered the shock.
Conclusion
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. Psychology is one avenue that with the right individual, people will follow. Milgram started this study to see why so many people followed Hitler in World War II. Not only did this study show many psychological aspects, but it also came with its set of ethical issues. Such as deception, the participants thought they were inflicting a set of shocks to a real personal, when it was a mock shock. Protection of the participants, just imagine being one of the members, having to inflict pain on another human being because they are being told to; the ramifications alone would be tremendous. Furthermore, Milgram never gave the participants a right to withdrawal from the study, while it was being conducted. People tend to obey orders from other individuals if they recognize their authority as morally right or legally based. Milgram stating, "There were powerful reactions of tensions and emotional strain in a substantial proportion of the participants. Persons were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, and bite their lips." That alone shows how powerful the human mind can be persuaded to do things they would not normally do when the show of force is there. Milgram started a movement when it came to the ideal of obedience within one's psychological aspect.
Milgram summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” writing:
“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, 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.” (Milgram 1974),

Reference

Milgram, S. (1963). A behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harpercollins.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6(4), 282-293.
Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd Edition). Prentice Hall.