Meeus And Raajimakers

Question 0

How many pps were there, their ages and how did they come to be?

Answer 0

39 Dutch pps, ages 18-55, male and females volunteered through newspaper adverts and were paid for their time.

Question 1

What was the aim of M&R’s study?

Answer 1

To whether modern psychological administrative violence (verbal comments) creates more or less obedience as compared to Milgrams method.
* To investigate the fact that Milgrams design led to an ambiguous situation which may have led to a greater obedience I.e. Mixed messages that the shocks were dangerous but not harmful.

Question 2

What were the pps led to believe?

Answer 2

They were taking part in a study into stress and performance.

Question 3

What did the pps believe the psychology department was doing?

Answer 3

The department had been commissioned to select candidates for a job and each applicant was to take a test, which would be administered by the pps.

Question 4

What was told to the pps about the test they were taking?

Answer 4

~the test was vital to success if they failed they lost the job.
~were told that being able to work under pressure was a requirement of the job.

Question 5

How many people were in the experimental group? And what did they have to do?

Answer 5

24pps and they were told to make a series of 15 increasingly stressful comments at set times to the confederate job applicant about how they were getting on with the test.

Question 6

How many people were in the control group? And what did they have to do?

Answer 6

15pps that were able to choose when to make the negative remarks and could stop making then at anytime during the test.

Question 7

How the the comments range and why?

Answer 7

Mild to harsh to see how they (pps) handled stress.

Question 8

What did the confederate applicant object to?

Answer 8

The interruptions and it became obvious that he was extremely distressed and would fail the test and not get the job.

Question 9

What happened 2/3 of the way through the test??

Answer 9

The applicant accused the researchers of giving false information and withdrew his consent to continue.

Question 10

What happened when they stopped making the stressful comments?

Answer 10

The experimenter (who was in the room) gave up to 4 verbal prods to the pps.

Question 11

What happened to the pps who made all the stressful remarks?

Answer 11

They were seen as obedient and those who refused to make all the stressful comments were disobedient.

Question 12

What did 92% of pps do?

Answer 12

They were fully obedient as they made all 15 stressful comments

Question 13

How did 96% of the pps feel?

Answer 13

Like they were dealing with a ‘real’ situation.

Question 14

How many blamed the experimenter and how many blamed theirselves?

Answer 14

45% blamed the experimenter and 33% blamed themselves

Question 15

What was the pps convinced about?

Answer 15

The applicants test scores had been seriously affected the stress remarks.

Question 16

No participants in the control condition were fully obedient because …

Answer 16

None of them made all 15 of the stressful comments.

Question 17

What was concluded?

Answer 17

~ The level of obedience in the study (92%) was considerably higher than in Milgrams study (65%).
~ results show that 20 years after Milgrams study and in a more liberal culture than Milgrams USA pps obeyed an authority figure suggesting obedience may not vary between cultures.
~ The study shows that it is easier to obey orders to use psychological violence (verbal abuse) than to obey orders to use physical violence ( electric shocks).

Question 18

Why was the research high in reliability?

Answer 18

The fact that there were standardised procedures and controls in place. For example the experimenter always gave the same four verbal prods if the pp refused to continue making the negative comments. This suggests the study can be replicated and tested for reliability and consistency results.

Question 19

How was there ecological validity?

Answer 19

The setting is a real university and the task is a job application, which is a real life task. The psychological violence was more in tune with the times than the physical violence Milgram demanded.

Question 20

Why was the study ethical?

Answer 20

~ Pps were fully debriefed and given full information about the design and purpose of the experiment.They were debriefed a second time by mail a year later and again asked to fill out a questionnaire about the experiment to ensure they were okay.
* There were no indicators in either debriefing that the pps had suffered any serious negative effects/harm from participating in the experiment.

Question 21

What were the positive applications or contributions?

Answer 21

The findings can help explain real life atrocities such as genocide as seen during the holocaust and the war against Iraq. Fear of being bullied in the workplace has given rise to “whistle blowing” policies to protect those who are autonomous.

Question 22

What is the supporting evidence?

Answer 22

Milgrams agency theory and studies of obedience. The pps actions were consistent with being in an agentic state - automatically responding to the experimenters authority.
* Milgram also found high levels of obedience where pps were willing to obey in a physical sense an experimenter and administer electric shocks to a confederate.

Question 23

Why does the study lack experimental validity?

Answer 23

Pps may not have believed in the reality of the experiment. The pps knew they were takin part in a study and would not normally been asked to give stress comments.
* Pps may also have felt protected from their actions because they assumed whatever happened at the university was fine and so trusted to the study

Question 24

Some claim M&R have high experimental validity too, why is this?

Answer 24

A high % in the study who were surveyed said they believed they were dealing with a “real” situation.

Question 25

Why was there low population validity in the study?

Answer 25

The sample may be biased, as it was volunteer sample.
* pps tend to be more motivated and so may have performed better e.g. More likely to deliver the stressful comments/obey, lowering experimental validity in turn.

Question 26

What are the ethical issues in the study?

Answer 26

~ The pps were caused distress by their involvement and made it clear that they found the treatment of the applicant unfair.

• Many pps intensely disliked making the stress remarks, were relieved that the victim was real not a real applicant and they had not in reality caused someone harm.
• Pps were also deceived as they thought the study was on stress and performance not obedience.
• Pps also thought the applicants were real and not actors