1.1.2 - Milgram (baseline study and variations)

Question 1

when and where did Milgram carry out his baseline study?

Answer 1

1963, Yale University Connecticut

Question 2

Milgram’s baseline study - aims?

Answer 2

to investigate the lengths people would go to to obey orders, even if it meant harming another person - particularly in the context of exploring the idea that Germans are different and are more obedient as obedience was a common justification for their actions persecuting over 10 million people in the Holocaust

Question 3

Milgram’s baseline study - participants?

Answer 3

they were selected through a newspaper advertisement which asked for volunteers for a ‘study of memory’ - they were all-American, aged 20-50, all male, paid $4.50 for participating and there were 40 in total

Question 4

Milgram’s baseline study - method?

Answer 4

at the start they were introduced to a confederate of Milgram who they drew straws with to determine who was the learner and teacher (it was fixed so the confederate was always the learner)
there was an experimenter dressed in a grey lab coat and played by an actor
the learner was strapped to a chair with electrodes and given a list of word pairs to learn
the teacher then had to test him on the word recall, and if the learner made a mistake, the teacher had to deliver an electric shock (the machine was fake but teachers were given a shock of 45V to convince them it was real)
there were 30 switches on the shock generator going up in 15V increments from 15V to 450V
if the teacher protested or refused to deliver a shock, the experimenter used a series of 4 prods to get them to continue (if they continued refusing the experiment ended and the maximum voltage was recorded)

Question 5

Milgram’s baseline study - results?

Answer 5

all participants continued to 300V and 65% continued to the maximum of 450V
12.5% dropped out and 35% exhibited nervous laughter
participants showed signs of distress eg. trembling, sweating, biting lips

Question 6

Milgram’s baseline study - conclusions?

Answer 6

blind obedience was not just a flaw of Germans - ordinary people generally follow orders given by figures of authority
people seem more likely to obey orders if they see the authority as moral or legally based eg. participants believed they were advancing science and saw the researchers as reputable

Question 7

Milgram’s variation (experiment 7 - telephonic instructions) - aims?

Answer 7

to see if levels of obedience were impacted by whether the experimenter was in the room with the teacher

Question 8

Milgram’s variation (experiment 7 - telephonic instructions) - method?

Answer 8

the experimenter gave the initial instructions face to face but then left the room and was only in touch by phone

Question 9

Milgram’s variation (experiment 7 - telephonic instructions) - results?

Answer 9

only 22.5% of people were fully obedient and delivered the 450V shock
people lied to the experimenter on the phone and said they were increasing the voltage when they were actually giving lower shocks
when the experimenter returned to the room obedience levels increased again

Question 10

Milgram’s variation (experiment 7 - telephonic instructions) - conclusions?

Answer 10

the physical presence of an authority figure is an important situational factor which increases obedience and reduces dissent

Question 11

Milgram’s variation (experiment 10 - rundown office block) - aims?

Answer 11

follow-up interviews suggested the prestige associated with Yale gave participants confidence to do the study, so this variation sought to identify if changing the location would alter obedience levels

Question 12

Milgram’s variation (experiment 10 - rundown office block) - method?

Answer 12

the location was moved to a rundown commercial office block in Bridgeport, Conneticut
Participants were told the researchers were from a private firm
The building was sparsely furnished but the same procedures were followed
the age and occupations of participants were kept constant and they were still paid

Question 13

Milgram’s variation (experiment 10 - rundown office block) - results?

Answer 13

47.5% of volunteers continued to the maximum voltage so obedience levels are slightly lower but Milgram didn’t think it was a significant difference
however some participants were doubtful and questioned the legitimacy of the study

Question 14

Milgram’s variation (experiment 10 - rundown office block) - conclusions?

Answer 14

having a more rundown setting slightly reduces obedience but a link to ‘scientific research’ is still enough for people to be obedient

Question 15

Milgram’s variation (experiment 13 - ordinary man gives orders) - aims?

Answer 15

to investigate whether people will obey orders given by someone without authority due to the strength of the order, or if authority is what encourages obedience

Question 16

Milgram’s variation (experiment 13 - ordinary man gives orders) - method?

Answer 16

an extra confederate was included who was given the task of recording times (so was in the same room as the teacher, the teacher believed they were another participant like them)
the experimenter is ‘called away’ by a fake phone call and instructs both the teacher and confederate recorder to get the learner to learn the words
the recorder suggests increasing the voltage by 15V each time when the learner makes a mistake and is insistent on this

Question 17

Milgram’s variation (experiment 13 - ordinary man gives orders) - results?

Answer 17

80% refused to continue to the maximum shock level when the ‘ordinary man’ gave the instructions
the strained atmosphere meant a further variation (13a) was carried out - if the participant refused to give the shocks, the recorder said they would do it (all 16 participants protested, 5 tried to physically restrain them or disconnect the power but 11 let them deliver the 450V shock)

Question 18

Milgram’s variation (experiment 13 - ordinary man gives orders) - conclusions?

Answer 18

obedience levels are much higher when orders are given from a legitimate source of authority - the source of authority is an important situational factor which encourages dissent

Question 19

what was the purpose of Milgram’s variations on his baseline study?

Answer 19

they demonstrate the situational factors that encourage dissent - presence of an authority figure, type of setting and legitimacy of authority

Question 20

what did Martin Orne (1966) say to criticise Milgram’s study?

Answer 20

he claimed the participants didn’t believe the shocks were real and knew they weren’t hurting Wallace but still went along with the experiment because that was what they thought they should do

Question 21

what could be a counter-argument to Orne’s criticism?

Answer 21

during the study many participants became very distressed (nervous laughter, trembling) and some reported having panic attacks and nightmares after which suggests they weren’t aware of the shocks being fake

Question 22

evaluating Milgram - generalisability?

Answer 22

low generalisability/ecological validity
conducted in lab at Yale - can’t guarantee that people would behave same in real-world situation
sample only consisted of men from USA - women or people from other countries may have been more or less likely to follow orders
task involved giving electric shocks - low mundane realism because not an order people would usually carry out
however it can still be used to understand extreme examples of destructive obedience

Question 23

evaluating Milgram - validity?

Answer 23

low validity
Orne’s criticism - demand characteristics meant pps behaved how they thought researchers wanted them to

high validity
standardised procedure (reduces researcher bias)
data was quantitative (reduces researcher bias)
experiments carried out in same controlled environment which reduced extraneous variables

Question 24

evaluating Milgram - reliability?

Answer 24

high reliability - Milgram used a standardised procedure which means other researchers can follow the same procedure and get the same result
Burger replicated Milgram’s study and got similar results showing the high reliability of the research

Question 25

evaluating Milgram - objectivity?

Answer 25

the shocks increased by 15V each time and the participants either continued or they didn’t
this shows the high objectivity of the research because it allows you to quantify obedience by measuring the amount of people that carried on or stopped

Question 26

evaluating Milgram - ethics (informed consent)?

Answer 26

participants weren’t told full aim of experiment meaning Milgram didn’t have informed consent and participants didn’t know what they were signing up for
counterargument - for purposes of study participants couldn’t know what the aim was as this would alter their behaviour

Question 27

evaluating Milgram - ethics (deception)?

Answer 27

participants were deceived multiple times - didn’t know what aim was and were led to believe shocks were real when they weren’t
problematic because participants thought they were hurting Wallace and became distressed
counterargument - deception was necessary to reduce demand characteristics and ensure the study was valid

Question 28

evaluating Milgram - ethics (debrief)?

Answer 28

debrief occurred but for some participants it wasn’t done immediately after
this meant they spent a while not understanding that they were in a study and believing that they had harmed Wallace
counterargument - by delaying the debriefs Milgram was able to look at the longer-term effects of complying with destructive obedience on his participants

Question 29

evaluating Milgram - ethics (right to withdraw)?

Answer 29

participants were told at the start that they could drop out and 12.5% did
counterargument - the prods used by the experimenter made participants feel pressured to continue even though they could stop

Question 30

evaluating Milgram - ethics (confidentiality)?

Answer 30

participants were recorded which breaches confidentiality because they can be identified from the recordings
counterargument - the recordings allow researchers today to watch them and identify things that Milgram didn’t notice

Question 31

evaluating Milgram - ethics (protection from harm)?

Answer 31

participants were clearly harmed and showed many signs of distress both during the experiment and after
counterargument - participants did have option to drop out and it was necessary to cause the harm because Milgram was investigating destructive obedience in extreme situations (so findings can be used to understand things like the Holocaust)