6: Research into Obedience (Milgram) Flashcards
What is meant by obedience
Obedience is a type of social influence whereby someone acts in response to a direct order.
This order comes from a perceived figure of authority.
There is also the implication that the person receiving the order is made to respond in a way that he or she would not otherwise have done (i.e. they are changing their behaviour)
Outline differences between obedience and conformity
- Obedience involved a direct order to change behaviour (explicit) whereas in conformity, behaviour changes are to go along with group norms (social pressures that may be real of imagined) (implicit)
- Obedience usually involves people of different social status (eg those with higher authority and those subjected to the authority) whereas conformity usually occurs within groups whose members have similar status (eg peer groups)
- Obedience occurs because those who give the orders have the power to ensure that their instructions are followed, whereas conformity occurs mainly because of the psychological need to be accepted by others in the group
Who did research into Obedience?
Milgram (1963)
Outline Research into Obedience
- aim
Milgram aimed to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis - the theory that Germans are somehow more likely to obey orders to harm others
Outline Research into Obedience
- procedure
- 40 male American volunteers invited to Yale University (prestigious setting) to take part in what they thought was a study on the effects of punishment on learning
- Ppts tested individually along with a confederate (posing as another participant)
- Selection of roles was fixed so that the confederate was always the ‘learner’ and the participant was always the ‘teacher’
- The teacher was instructed by an authority figure (the researcher) to punish the learner by flicking switches on an electric shock generator for incorrect responses on a memory test that involves remembering a series of word-pairs
- Shocks ranged from 15V increasing in 15V increments to 450V
- If ppts refused to continue, the researcher would respond with direct orders (‘verbal prods’) such as ‘You must continue!’
- Milgram wanted to see how far the ppts would go in order to obey an unreasonable order from an authority figure
Outline Research into Obedience
- findings
- many of the participants showed signs of extreme tension; the shook, sweated and stuttered
- many ppts repeatedly argued with the researcher and yet Milgram found an obedience rate of 65% (continued to max of 450V)
- this was unexpected as before the study, Milgram asked a range of people to predict how the ppts would behave and they predicted only 1 in 1000 woudk continue to maximum level of 450V
Outline Research into Obedience
- conclusion
Milgram concluded that Germans are not different and in fact we are all capable of blind and ‘destructive’ obedience to unjust orders
Evaluate Research into Obedience
- Strengths
P: Evidence to support from Bickman (1974)
E: He asked passers-by in New York to lend money to a stranger for a parking meter
E: It was found that they obeyed 49% of the time when he was dressed in street clothes but this increased to 92% of the time when he was dressed in a security guards uniform
L: Supports Milgrams finding because, although Bickmans study didn’t involve causing anyone harm (it didn’t test ‘destructive obedience’) it supports the idea that we will follow unusual orders provided the person giving them is seen to have enough authority
E: Study conducted in real-life setting so more ecological valid and reflective of obedience in real life situations
P: High degree of control over variables
E: Milgrams study took place in the controlled setting of a laboratory, making it easier to control EVs
E: For example, Milgram could control the answers given by the ‘learner’, the sound that the ‘teacher’ could hear the ‘learner’ give at specific voltages and the ‘verbal prods’ used by the researcher
L: Gives the study high internal validity
P: Easy to replicate
E: Controlled setting of a laboratory made it easier to repeat the experiment in exactly the same way, adjusting the variables each time to test their influence on obedience
E: for example, Milgram was able to keep everything the same (standardised) but change variables such as the proximity and uniform of the authority figure
L: Allowed Milgram to test which variables affect obedience the most to gain a better understanding
Evaluate Research into Obedience
- Limitations
P: can be criticised for lacking ecological validity
E: took place in artificial laboratory setting so doesn’t reflect obedience in real life
E: for example people may respond differently to figures of authority in real life situations such as in response to police or a manager
L: findings cannot be generalised to real life situations of obedience
E: however similar research like Bickman (1974) is ecologically valid and made the same conclusions as milgram
P: artificial setting of the laboratory and artificial task (administering electric shocks is not a common event) may encourage demand characteristics
E: ppts may have realised the set up was fake and were simply behaving as they thought they were expected to by obeying (please-you effect)
E: evidence for this comes from Orne who suggested ppts didn’t believe the electric shocks were real and therefore were not really obeying the researchers demands to hurt the learner
L: research may lack internal validity (not measuring true behaviour)
P: criticised for using deception
E: ppts we’re deliberately misled regarding the true nature of the experiment
E: evidence for this comes from the fact Milgram led the participants ti believe that the electric shocks were real when they were not. Furthermore, the ppts were denied informed consent as they could not have known about the true nature of the study until afterwards in the debrief
L: goes against the ethical code of conduct
E: Milgram wouldn’t have been able to obtain realistic results if he hadn’t used deception
