explanations for obedience - milgram Flashcards
what was the aim of milgram’s research?
to test whether ordinary americans would obey an unjust order and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to do so by an authority figure
what was the sample used by Milgram?
40 american males aged 20-50
- volunteer sample: responded to an advert in a newspaper, paid £4.50
- 2 experimental confederates
outline Milgram’s procedure
- ppt given the role of ‘teacher’ and a confederate given the
role of ‘learner’, this was decided through a random allocation. - ppt had to ask the confederate a series of questions, whenever the confederate got the answer wrong, the ppt had to give him an electric shock, even when no answer was given.
- the electric shocks raised by 15 volts at a time, ranging from 300V to 450V, where 330V was marked as ‘lethal’.
- ppt’s thought the shocks were real when in fact there were no real shocks administered, and the confederate was acting.
- ppt’s were assessed on how many volts they were willing to shock the confederate with.
- the experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders / prods when the ppt refused to administer a shock, which increased in terms of demandingness every time the ppt refused to administer a shock.
outline Milgram’s findings
- all participants went up to 300V
- 65% went up to 450V
- no participants stopped below 300V - only 12.5% stopped at 300V,
showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared
to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
what was the conclusion of Milgram’s research?
suggests a situational, not dispositional explanation for obedience
- most people would obey authority in these situations
what are the 3 variations of Milgram’s research?
- proximity
- location
- uniform
how did Milgram change the proximity in his study?
- teacher (ppt) and learner were in the same room
- touch proximity condition: ppt had to hold learner’s arm on shock plate
- proximity of authority figure: experimenter gave instructions to the ppt via telephone
what were Milgram’s findings about proximity as a factor of obedience?
- ppt’s obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same
room (62.5%) this was reduced to 40% when the experimenter
and ppt were in separate rooms - touch proximity condition: obedience dropped to 30%,
- telephone: obedience fell to 21% compared to the original 65%.
how did Milgram change the location in his study?
- the study was carried out at Yale university, this location gave participants confidence that the study was legit and they trusted the experimenters more.
- another study was carried out at a less prestigious location in a run-down office
what were Milgram’s findings about location as a factor of obedience?
- Yale: 65% obedience
- run-down office: 47.5% obedience
how did Milgram change uniform in his study?
- in the original study the experimenter wore a lab coat.
- in another variation the experimenter was called away and the role was taken over by someone wearing ordinary clothes
what were Milgram’s findings about uniform as a factor of obedience?
- ppt’s obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat.
a person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy - lab coat: 65% obedience
- ordinary clothes: 20% obedience
evaluation: ppt’s were debriefed + ELAB: deception
ID: a strength of Milgram’s research is that ppt’s were debriefed
Q: this means that the ppt’s were thoroughly and carefully debriefed on the real aims of the study, in an attempt to deal with the ethical issues of protection from deception and the possibility to give informed consent
EX: for example, in a follow up study
conducted a year later, 84% of participants were glad they were
part of the study and 74% felt as if they learned something
AN: this suggests that the study left little or no permanent or long-term
psychological harm on ppt’s
ELAB: however, despite this, there was deception, and so informed consent could not be
obtained.
EX: furthermore, some ppt’s did show signs of psychological distress, such as trembling, sweating and nervous laughter. such findings were also replicated in the Jeu de la Mort study, showing that these results were
not due to participant variables
evaluation: lacks ecological validity + ELAB: Hofling supports
ID: a limitation of Milgram’s research is that it lacks ecological validity
Q: the tasks given to participants are not like those we would encounter in real life
EX: for example, people do not usually receive orders to hurt another person in real life.
AN: this means that, the methodology lacks mundane realism, producing results which are low
in ecological validity.
ELAB: however, Hofling replicated the research in a real-life setting of a hospital, and found similar results
EX: for example, 21/22 nurses gave a lethal dose of a drug when ordered to do so by a doctor
AN: this supports Milgram’s research as it shows obedience is high in real-life, increasing external validity
evaluation: lacks generalisability
ID: Milgram’s research can be criticised for lacking generalisability
Q: he used an unrepresentative volunteer sample of 40 american males aged 20-50.
EX: this means that, they became participants by choosing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (self-selecting). therefore, they may also have a typical “volunteer personality” as not all the newspaper readers responded, so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so.
AN: this is a limitation, as the study may have demand characteristics due to a specific sample used. furthermore, the results can’t be generalised to the wider population
