Milgram

Question 1

Aim + Sample

Answer 1

Aim- To find out whether American would obey an unjust order from a person in authority and inflict pain on another person. (Also, if Germans had a basic character flaw which enabled them to bey orders without question)

Sample: Self-selected. Yale University. 40 American Males aged 20-50. Teachers, doctors, engineers, labourer’s. Education- 1 not finishing school to some with doctorates. Advert in New Haven Newspaper, Direct mail solidification.

Question 2

Procedure + Methodology

Answer 2

Procedure:
• Recruited from advert, paid $4.50, PPS met by confederate/experimenter and learner Mr. Wallace.
• Allocated as learner or teacher- rigged always Wallace as learner.
• Wallace strapped to chair, electrodes, PPS put in another room- generator.
• Word activity read out-shock when mistake made.
• When teacher (PPS) refused- verbal prods given- “Experiment requires you to continue”
• Process continued until PPS reached the last switch 450V or refused to continue after prods
• Some were debriefed afterwards
• Pre-recorded responses: 150V, 300V, 330V.

Methodology:
Controlled observation conducted in a lab. Lab environment. Not an experiment- No IVs, PPS not randomly assigned.

Question 3

Findings

Answer 3

Findings:
• Qualitative- All went to 300V, 65% 2/3 went to 450V
• Quantitative- Many PPS showed distress- twitching, giggling nervously, digging nails into skin. 3 had seizures. Some showed little, if any, signs of discomfort.
Conclusion- People blindly obey those regarded as authority figures. We will obey order that distress us and go against moral code.

Question 4

Evaluation: Validity

Answer 4

• Internal Validity–> PPS had to complete an unreal task and received unrealistic responses from experimenter- artificial response- not accurately reflect real obedience.
• Demand Characteristics- PPS didn’t know true aims, could mean PPS didn’t alter bev, however were paid.
• Conducted in a highly controlled environment- experimental variables could be isolated and extraneous could be controlled for, meaning that the accurate measuring of causation is greater.
• External Validity–> Use of volunteers- Sample reduced population validity, making pps and their bev unrepresentative
• Androcentric- only used males, not relative to females
• Ecological Validity–> Sheriden & King (1972) Men- 54%, Women- 100%, 450V on puppies. Hoffing et al (1966) 21/22 nurses- administered drug ordered by fake doctor- dosage was 2x max, stopped before given

Question 5

Evaluation: Ethical Issues

Answer 5

Deception- Informed PPS the study was about memory + learning; lied about the use of a confederate; lack of shocks; use of pre-recorded responses from learner.
Fix- Through debrief –> Emphasise the right to withdraw. Brief –> issue of demand characteristics
Protection From Harm: Signs of extreme tension, PPS were observed to show signs of distress–> left with long-term damage
Fix- Signpost to appropriate support. Screening PPS –> Reduce amount of prods
Right to withdraw–> Given verbal prods if challenged experimenter
Fix- Identify distress will be caused, emphasise right to withdraw if needed
Confidentiality + Privacy –> Footage was released
Fix- Debrief –> Retrospective consent –> Presumptive consent –> Prior general consent