03. Milgram Variation Studies Flashcards
How did Milgram set out to investigate situational factors that might encourage or discourage dissent (disobedience)?
He created a standard procedure as a baseline to compare to other results.
Describe ‘Variation 5- The Baseline’
Milgram compared the scores in the variations with Experiment 5, which he called the new baseline. In variation 5, he introduced the idea that the learner had a heart condition (but only mild, not enough to disqualify them from the study). In this variation the participant can hear the leaner responding to the electric shocks.
Result: 65% go to 450V
100% go to 300V
Describe the variation studies- telephonic instruction (influence of proximity on level of obedience).
Procedure: Provided face to face instructions first of all then left the room. Continued to provide instructions over the phone.
Results: 22.5% continued to 40V in comparison to 65% in original study.
What did the telephonic instructions variation change/keep the same?
Kept the same: Provided face to face instructions first of all.
Changed: Lack of physical presence of experimenter, instructions continued to be provided over the phone.
AO3 of telephonic instructions variation.
VALIDITY: Same validity as baseline, can infer a cause and effect relationship between distance and obedience, this is a strength as it allows for a direct comparison to the baseline to be made.
BUT due to prestigious environment of Yale, participants behaviour may be unnatural, which decreases validity (demand characteristics). Therefore there is low ecological validity and we may not get same results in a real life setting.
Describe Sedikides and Jacksons 1990 field experiment (AO3).
Field experiment in New York zoo, where visitors were asked not to lean on the railings. Researchers manipulated the strength of the source by dressing a confederate as either a zoo keeper (58% obedience) or in a t-shirt and shorts (38% obedience). Obedience also declined when visitors were further from the person making the request (61% when in the same room, 7% when in an adjacent room). The divisional effect was also tested- obedience was greater in a smaller group of one or two visitors (fewer targets, 70%) compared with a group of five or six (more targets, 14%).
Why were results so different in the telephonic instructions variation?
Participants administered lower shocks (rather than increasing by 15V) and lied to the experimenter.
The physical presence of the experimenter is a force when it comes to obedience.
Application- If someone wants obedience they should be present rather than giving orders from a distance (eg over the phone). This is because of pressure, as it’s more visual due to facial expressions and body language.
Describe the run down office block variation.
Some procedures as original study.
Dissociated from Yale (integrity, prestigious settings), building was partly furnished, participants told the research was being conducted by Research Associated of Bridgeport (private company).
Results: 47.5% in comparison to 65%.
Less reputable context effected legitimacy of the study. During debrief participants questioned the credentials of the company.
What did the run down office block variation change/keep the same?
Kept the same: Standardised procedure, experimenter gave set prompts, in a set order. Learner’s responses were prerecorded.
Changed: Location of study was moved to a rundown office block in Bridgeport. Study was said to be conducted by Research Associates of Bridgeport using researches from a private firm, not Yale.
AO3 of run down office block variation.
Mundane setting, helping to make test more believable. Therefore this would increase the external validity as ppts would feel less pressure and inclination to display demand characteristics.
19 ppt obeyed in the office setting VS 26 in the Yale setting, which is not a huge difference.
Describe the ordinary man gives orders variation (role of perceived authority on obedience).
No lab coat- experimenter played by an ‘ordinary man’.
Draw for 3 roles: Experimenter, teacher and learner (all rigged).
Experimenter gives instructions then gets called away to leave the room. This leaves just the participant and accomplice (ordinary man) who participant things is another participant recording times. Then ordinary man suggests new way of doing the study, going up shock levels in response to a mistake (participant is unaware this is the normal procedure).
Results: 16 refused, 4 went to maximum.
20% obedience compared to original 65%.
80% broke off before the maximum shock level 450V.
What did the ordinary man variation change/keep the same?
Kept the same: Set up the same way as original study, which is a strength as comparisons can be made directly.
Change: Experimenter gives instructions then gets called away to leave the room. This leaves the participant and the accomplice (ordinary man, who participant thinks is another ppt in charge of recording times), who suggests a new way of doing the study, by going up the shock levels in response to a mistake (which the participant doesn’t know is the normal procedure).
AO3 of ordinary man variation.
Reliability: Same as baseline, replicable, standardised.
Ecological validity: Possibility results could change based on the environment (Yale university laboratories) despite the change in clothes. Hence this means there is a lack of knowledge on the exact cause and effect of this variation.
Bickman (1974) looked to see if uniform (security guard, milk man, shirt and tie) had an affect on obedience in NY. He found people were twice as likely to listen to a security guard then someone in ‘normal clothes’.
What are the potential benefits to society of Milgram’s study?
Milgram wanted to know why Germans were willing to kill Jews during the Holocaust. He thought that it might have been because Germans were just evil. He thought that Americans were different and would not have followed such orders.
To test this he carried out this study, the Milgram experiment has provided an insight into people’s behaviour towards figures of authority and what variables can affect this and draw people away from their moral compass.
We can se this research to help us understand many historical events as well as serving as a warning to the dangers of corrupt authority figures.
How does location affect obedience?
The more prestigious and integral the location, the more obedient the ppts.
