1.5: Stanley Milgram (1963) Flashcards
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks)
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
Who were they met by?
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
Who did he introduce them to?
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
What were the participants told?
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
What was Mr Wallace always?
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and what were the participants always?
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers’
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed what?
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, what were they given?
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was what?
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
What was the teacher told to do each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong?
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that did what with each successive mistake?
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
What did all participants do?
All participants shocked up to 300 volts
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and what % of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts?
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
Why is this?
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However,
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this,
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
What does this suggest?
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
What does this suggest?
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore,
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
Third AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety.
This replication
This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety.
This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is an alternative explanation that is social identity theory
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety.
This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is an alternative explanation that is social identity theory.
According to social identity theory, the key to obedience lies in group identification.
In Milgram’s study, participants identified with the experimenter – they identified with the science of the study
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety.
This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is an alternative explanation that is social identity theory.
According to social identity theory, the key to obedience lies in group identification.
In Milgram’s study, participants identified with the experimenter – they identified with the science of the study.
When obedience levels fell, this was because the participants identified less with the science and more with the victim or with another group
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety.
This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is an alternative explanation that is social identity theory.
According to social identity theory, the key to obedience lies in group identification.
In Milgram’s study, participants identified with the experimenter – they identified with the science of the study.
When obedience levels fell, this was because the participants identified less with the science and more with the victim or with another group.
Haslam and Reicher (2012) analysed the behaviour of the participants in Milgram’s study and they looked at how a person behaved every time one of the four prods were used.
The first three prods don’t demand obedience – they appeal for help with the science, for example ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’
The fourth prod demands obedience (‘You have no other choice, you must go on’) and every time the fourth prod was used, the participant quit
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (16 marks).
40 American males aged 20 - 50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University.
They were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat.
He introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, who was a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.
The participants were told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that the punishments would involve increasingly severe electric shocks.
Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ and the participants were always the ‘teachers.’
After the participants were showed the shock machine and how the shots were administered, they were given a real (minor) shock of 45 volts to convince them that everything was real and authentic.
The teacher was told to give a shock each time Mr Wallace got an answer wrong, that increased by 15 volts with each successive mistake.
All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% of participants shocked all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is low internal validity.
This is because participants didn’t believe the shocks were real.
Orne and Holland criticised the internal validity of Milgram’s study, because they believed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real.
However, 70% of participants in post-study interviews said that they believed the electric shocks were real and the extreme reactions of many of the participants also suggest this.
Despite this, Perry traced as many original participants as she could and found that the true figure was only about 50%.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings cannot be generalised to the wider population, due to having low internal validity.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is good external validity.
Although it was conducted in a laboratory, the central feature of the situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
Other research supports this argument.
For example, Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high, with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying.
This suggests that the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s laboratory study can be generalised to other situations.
Therefore, his findings can be applied to real life situations, as they have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is supporting replication.
For example, the Game of Death is a documentary that was presented on French TV in 2010.
It includes a replication of Milgram’s study.
The participants believed they were contestants in an episode for a new game show and were paid to give fake electric shocks, when ordered by the presenter, to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience.
In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety.
This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is an alternative explanation that is social identity theory.
According to social identity theory, the key to obedience lies in group identification.
In Milgram’s study, participants identified with the experimenter – they identified with the science of the study.
When obedience levels fell, this was because the participants identified less with the science and more with the victim or with another group.
Haslam and Reicher (2012) analysed the behaviour of the participants in Milgram’s study and they looked at how a person behaved every time one of the four prods were used.
The first three prods don’t demand obedience – they appeal for help with the science, for example ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’
The fourth prod demands obedience (‘You have no other choice, you must go on’) and every time the fourth prod was used, the participant quit.
Why is this a limitation of Milgram’s conclusions about authority?
This is a limitation of Milgram’s conclusions about authority, because it’s not valid – social identity theory is a better explanation
