Core study one- Milligram (social area)

Question 1

What was the aim of Milligram’s study

Answer 1

To investigate what level of obedience participants would go to when asked to deliver electric shocks to someone by an authority figure- the aim was to see if they went all the way to 450 volts which is enough to kill someone ( something they normally Dem as immoral).

Question 2

What is the background of Milligram’s study

Answer 2

Between 1933 and 1945, millions of people were systematically slaughtered on command in Nazi Germany. Therefore, some historians suggested that German had a social defect that allowed them to blindly obey. As Eichmann who organised the holocaust when put on trail said he was only guilty of being obedient. Milligram wanted to therefore prove it is a social fact that the individual who is in commanded by a legitimate authority obeys.

Question 3

What was the design of the experiment

Answer 3

It is a controlled experiment because there was no independent variable. Milligram was simply seeing how the participants would obey and too how many shocks.

Question 4

What was the sample

Answer 4

The participants were forty men aged between twenty and fifty. They were in relatively professional jobs. They were picked to mirror the Nazi’s.

Question 5

How was the sample obtained

Answer 5

The sample was obtained through a newspaper advertisement and direct mailing. They were paid four pounds fifty to take part in an experiment which they said was about memory, learning and punishment.

Question 6

Explain the producre

Answer 6

At the start the naive participant was always assigned teacher as it was rigged not random. The learner (actually a confederate) was then strapped into a chair so that they could revive very painful but not damaging electric shocks in a different room. The teacher was given a sample shock of 45 volts to make the experiment seem real and that they were actually giving shocks. They then completed a word pair as they were told the experiment was to do with learning, memory and punishment. However, when they got a wrong answer, they received an electric shock that increased by fifteen volts at every wrong answer. Although, at 300 volts the learner bangs on the wall, he then bangs on the wall at 315 volts after that he stops responding all together. At 450 volts the experiment was stopped unless they had already refused to counite. Although, the experimenter gave then a list of prods for example please continue when they showed unwillingness. All teacher counited until 300 volts but only 65% continue until 450 volts. Milligram concluded that this is a situation that produces extremely strong tendencies to obey but it is also generates extortionary tension.

Question 7

What are the quantitative

Answer 7

All participants (40/40) - 100% continued to 300 volts.
26/40 - 65% of participants continued to the full 450 volts.
26 obedient and 14 disobedient
The mean prediction from Yale students was 1.2% and ranged from 0 to 3%.
300 volts, which was labelled as intense shock

Question 8

What are the qualitative

Answer 8

Overall Signs of extreme tension
Participants were ‘observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh’
14 showed nervous laughter
Three had ‘Full-blown uncontrollable seizures’

Question 9

ONCLUSIONS BASED ON FINDINGS

Answer 9

The conclusions reached by Milligram relate to the situation he created and its effects on his participants.
First, he concluded that this is a situation that produces extremely strong tendencies to obey. Second, he concluded that the situation generates extraordinary tension and emotional strain.

Question 10

Why the high levels of obedience

Answer 10

Took place at Yale university, a credible institution with a good reputation
The results would be useful, feel they are helping discover something important for science.
The leaner had volunteered to take part
Participants were paid so felt obliged to continue.
The researcher was dressed in a lab coat and seemed to have a sense of authority.

Question 11

CONFLICT
Why the high levels of tension?

Answer 11

The participants wanted to meet the experiment and the victims demands but they were very different ( abstract scientific knowledge vs relief from physical pain and suffering).
Experimenter gave participants little time for reflection.
Conflict not to harm other people and tendency to obey those to be perceived legitimate authority.

Question 12

Name the prods

Answer 12

Please continue
The experiment requires you to continue
It is absolutely essential that you continue
You have no other choice but to continue

Question 13

What does situational mean in the situational/individual debate

Answer 13

That our behaviour is determined by the environment that we are in and is slightly different depending on each circumstance

Question 14

What does individual mean in the situational/individual debate

Answer 14

It means that our behaviour is down to our natural personality and does not differ depending on our environment

Question 15

Obedience

Answer 15

is compliance with commands given by an authority figure

Question 16

Autonomous state

Answer 16

people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.

Question 17

Agentic state

Answer 17

people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

Question 18

Social Area

Answer 18

Human behaviour occurs in a social context (even in absence of others).
Other people & the environment influence behaviour and thought processes.
Relationships with others influence behaviour and thought processes.

Question 19

Evaluate the population validity of Milligram’s study

Answer 19

Population validity reduced because the participants were all from the same area and all men so findings might not represent obedience of women or people from other places. Limited range of ages studied which could limit generalisability. Recruited through a newspaper advert, so the sample may only reflect literate people or a certain demographic of people who read that newspaper.

Population validity increases because it was a Fairly large range of ages and the participants were from diverse backgrounds (labourers, factory workers, businessmen, etc.) so should be representative of different people. The sample reflects those who would have been working in the Nazi concentration camps during WW2.

Question 20

Evaluate the construct validity of Milligram’s study

Answer 20

Construct validity decreased because Milligram didn’t do much to ensure participants were all psychologically healthy. Milligram would not have been testing obedience if a participant enjoyed hurting people and shocked the learner for pleasure.

Construct validity increased because there were lots of controls in place such as the appearance of the experimenter, the prods used, the instructions given to participants at the start of the study, how the learner behaved (e.g. kicking the wall at 300V, etc. which should reduce extraneous variables.

Question 21

Evaluate the ecological validity of Milligram’s study

Answer 21

Ecological validity decreases because the request from the authority figure (to cause serious harm to someone else) was an extreme one - this is not the type of request that most people would be given by an authority figure in everyday situations. Highly artificial setting (Yale)

Ecological validity increased because People working in the Nazi death camps were also required by authority figures to inflict harm upon other people.

Question 22

Elevate the external validity of Milligram’s study

Answer 22

High internal validity because All participants experienced exactly the same procedure - there were no conditions or groups to split them into. Forty participants should be large enough to suggest consistency in the findings about the level of obedience shown by participants (majority went to 450V).

Question 23

Elevate the internal validity of Milligram’s study

Answer 23

Decreased internal validity because Even though there were 4 standard ‘prods’, it would have been difficult for the ‘experimenter’ to act in precisely the same way with each participant (‘teacher’). Ethical guidelines mean that this study couldn’t be carried out now (e.g. because of the level of deception and also the likelihood of harm being caused to participants) decreasing the internal reliability as it cannot be repeated.

Question 24

Ethnocentrism of Milligram’s study

Answer 24

Milligram could be seen to be ethnocentric because the obedience shown may only be reflective of (predominantly) white Americans and other cultures might not go as far in inflicting electric shocks to another person. People in the US may be more trusting of authority than other cultures and so obedience might be higher.

Milligram study could not be seen to be ethnocentric Replications of the study in other cultures often produced quite similar results.

Question 25

Milgram is part of the social area because

Answer 25

It is revealing the extent to which people’s behaviour can be influenced by other people around them. For example in milgram the 40 males from New Haven Area didn’t want to administer high voltage electrical shocks to the learner but in the face of an authority figure, they went against their desires and obeyed.

Question 26

Strengths of the social area

Answer 26

1. It can help improve our understanding of human behaviour, in particular, to which extent is affected by other people.
2. Research is very useful as it can have applications in a range of different settings
3. Research is able to explain real-world event

Question 27

Limitations of the Social Area

Answer 27

1. Findings from research within the Social Area might not be true all the time (as social situations can change over time)
2. Findings may not be true for all places (as social situations can change from one culture to another)

Question 28

Ethics broken

Answer 28

(harm) psychological stress shown by seizures

(deception) - lied to about the aim of the study they were told the study was about memory and punishment when it was really about obedience and they really thought they were giving shocks to the learner when they weren’t

Right to withdraw- participant tried to stop but they were stopped by a list of prods given by the experimenter