1. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (Explanations Of Obedience As Investigated By Milgram) Flashcards
What was the aim of Milgram’s (1963) study on obedience?
To investigate whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in authority to inflict pain on another person.
Describe the methodology of Milgram’s obedience study.
40 male volunteers from various backgrounds participated. They were assigned the role of “teacher” and administered increasing electric shocks to a “learner” (a confederate) for wrong answers, with shocks up to 450 volts. The participants were unaware the shocks were fake.
What were the key findings of Milgram’s study?
65% of participants administered the full 450-volt shock, despite signs of anxiety. Participants showed extreme tension, such as sweating and trembling. Some even experienced uncontrollable seizures.
What conclusion did Milgram draw from his study on obedience?
Under certain circumstances, people will obey authority figures, even when they feel uncomfortable or distressed about doing so.
What was a strength of Milgram’s study related to replication?
Research support from a French documentary (Beauvois et al, 2012) showed similar obedience rates (80% gave 460 volts). This supports Milgram’s original findings, demonstrating that obedience to authority is consistent across different settings.
Why does Milgram’s study have high control?
The experiment used the experimental method, controlling variables like instructions and the appearance of the experimenter. This helped establish cause-and-effect relationships, enhancing the internal validity of the study.
What is a limitation of Milgram’s study regarding ecological validity?
The study took place in an artificial lab setting, with an unusual task of administering electric shocks, which does not reflect everyday obedience situations, limiting generalizability to real-world contexts.
What is a limitation of Milgram’s study related to population validity?
The participants were all male American volunteers, so the findings may not apply to females or people from other cultures, limiting the ability to generalize to a wider population.
How might Milgram’s study be historically biased?
Conducted during the 1960s, when societal obedience was potentially influenced by the Cold War. This historical context may make it difficult to apply the findings to contemporary society, as social and political climates have changed.
How does research by Blass (1999) support Milgram’s study?
Blass found no relationship between the year a study was published and obedience levels, suggesting that Milgram’s findings have historical validity. Burger (2009) found similar obedience levels to Milgram’s study even decades later.
What is a limitation of Milgram’s study in terms of internal validity?
Some participants may not have believed the shocks were real, as evidenced by conflicting reports. If they were “play-acting,” this could undermine the validity of the study’s findings about obedience.
How did Sheridan and King’s (1972) study support Milgram’s findings?
They used real shocks on a puppy and found that 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This supports the idea that people are obedient even when the consequences are real.
What ethical issue is associated with Milgram’s study?
Milgram deceived participants by making them believe they were giving real shocks and that the study was about punishment and learning. This violated informed consent and protection from harm, as many participants showed signs of extreme distress
How did Milgram justify the ethical concerns in his study?
Milgram argued that deception was necessary to prevent demand characteristics and ensure that the results accurately reflected real-world obedience. He also noted that many participants reported being glad to have participated.
How does Milgram’s study explain obedience in real-life situations?
Milgram’s findings have been used to explain real-world instances of obedience, such as the actions of individuals involved in the torture at the Abu Ghraib prison, where authority figures’ instructions led to abusive behaviours.
