4 - Obedience: Milgram’s Baseline Study

Question 1

Define obedience

Answer 1

Form of social influence in which somebody acts in a way that they otherwise wouldn’t due to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority

Question 2

What was the aim of Milgram’s study?

Answer 2

To investigate whether obedience to authority (in events such as the Holocaust) was a result of dispositional or situational factors

Question 3

What was Milgram interested in?

Answer 3

If evil was dispositional or situational

Specifically the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis

Question 4

What was the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis?

Answer 4

That Germans were more obedient due to dispositional factors (personality), which caused them to murder over 6 million Jews in Holocaust

Question 5

Who was Stanley Milgram?

Answer 5

• Classmate of Zimbardo

- From working class family in NY

Question 6

How is obedience different to conformity?

Answer 6

Obedience is complying to a direct instructions, whereas conformity involves implicit instructions

Question 7

What determines perceived authority of a figure?

Answer 7

Person and setting that person is in (e.g. teacher in school not street)

Question 8

Who were the participants in Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 8

40 males

• Aged 20-50
• Different occupations

Question 9

How were the participants recruited for Milgram’s study?

Answer 9

Newspaper ad - volunteer sampling

Question 10

How much were participants paid for Milgram’s study?

Answer 10

$4.50 for hr of time (on arrival)

Question 11

When was Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 11

1963

Question 12

Where was Milgram’s baseline study?

Answer 12

Yale Uni

Question 13

Outline the procedure of Milgram’s baseline study

Answer 13

• Rigged draw for role:
  Ppt (naive) = ‘teacher’
  ‘Mr Wallace’ (confederate) = ‘learner’
  Man in lab coat (confederate) = ‘experimenter’
• Ppt told:
  Right to withdraw
  Fake aim ‘investigate how punishment affects memory’
  Read word, learner gives pair, if incorrect or no answer then shock, increasing by 15V from 15V-450V
• ‘Learner’ strapped in chair with electrodes in another room
• Ppt received example shock, from then on shocks were fake
• Play standardised recording of learner protesting when shocked + giving no response after 315V
• Observed ppt (whether they continued to shock)
• If ppt seemed unsure, experimenter gave standardised prompts in order

Question 14

What did the shock range from?

Answer 14

• 15V (slight shock)
• 300 V (intense shock)
• 450V (danger - severe shock)

Question 15

What were the four standardised prompts (given in order)?

Answer 15

1) ‘Please continue’
2) ‘The experiment requires that you continue’
3) ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
4) ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’

Question 16

Were the results from Milgram’s baseline experiment quantitive or qualitative?

Answer 16

Both

• Quantitive = No. volts given
• Qualitative = Observations + answers to follow up questionnaire

Question 17

What were the results of Milgram’s baseline experiment?

Answer 17

Quantitive:

• No ppts stopped before 300V
• 12.5% ppts stopped at 300 V
• 65% ppts continued all the way to 450V

Qualitative:

• Observed behaviours showing tension (sweat, tremble, 3 seizures)
• Questionnaire found 84% felt glad to have participated

Question 18

What was the conclusion of Milgram’s baseline experiment?

Answer 18

People will be obedient to those they perceive as legitimate authority, even if they are being asked to do something immoral

Question 19

What did the 14 psych students Milgram spoke to predict about the findings? Were they correct?

Answer 19

Prediction:
- No more than 3% ppts would continue to 450V
Incorrect:
- They massively underestimated the obedience rates of the ppts

Question 20

What were ppts told in the debrief?

Answer 20

• True aim
• Real procedure
• Reassured that their behaviour was normal

Question 21

Give 2 positive evaluation points for Milgram’s original study?

Answer 21

Research to support

• Le Jeu de la Mort (2010)
• Ppts instructed to give fake shocks to presenter (confederate)
• Found similarly high obedience
• Similar quantitive findings: 80% gave max (450V) to ‘unconscious’ man
• Similar qualitative findings: nervous behaviours, laughing, etc

Methodology effectively mimics real authority relationships, so has high external validity
- Hofling et al (1966) found high obedience of nurses to unjustified demands from doctor over phone (21/22 nurses obeyed)
BUT - Rank + Jacobson (1977) found only 2/18 nurses obeyed in more realistic conditions (maybe neither researchers mimicked real life authority relationships well)

Question 22

Give 3 negative evaluation points for Milgram’s baseline study

Answer 22

Methodology has low internal validity, due to demand characteristics
- Orne + Holland (1968) said many ppts guessed shocks were fake
- May have been ppt reactivity to demand characteristics that caused obedience
BUT
- Milgram claimed 70% of ppts believed the shocks were real
- Sheridan + King (1972) replicated using real shocks to puppy, and obedience was still high, (54% males + 100% females gave ‘fatal’ shock)

Ethical issues

• Baumrind (1964) among psychologists who criticised ethics
• Used deception + potential for psychological harm (despite debrief)

Alternative explanation - Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981)

• Obedience due to identifying with the experimenter, as were willing volunteers, wanting to contribute to the science of the study
• Haslam + Reicher (2012) said first 3 prods were obeyed due to asking for help with science
• Everyone quit if fourth prod used, as demand obedience, after which ppt identifies more with the victim, feeling sorry for them, so stops