Milgram

Question 1

Research for obedience

Answer 1

Milgram’s baseline experiment

Question 2

Date for Milgram

Answer 2

1963

Question 3

Why did Milgram conduct his experiment?

Answer 3

To investigate why the German people operated with Hitler and why ordinary people participated in the holocaust. He theorised that the Germans were more obedient

Question 4

Definition of obedience

Answer 4

Form of social influence, where an individual follows a direct order, usually from a person in a position of authority (power to punish).

Question 5

Milgram’ procedure

Answer 5

-40 American men (aged 20-50) volunteered to be part of an experiment on Yale University, on the effect of punishment on memory
-Led into a room where the participants were “randomly allocated” to be teachers while a confederate was made the learner
-Teacher would be given list of words in pairs
-Teacher would read the first word, and the learner would have to chose the correct word for that pair
-If incorrect, the teacher would shock the learner using a shock machine
-Put in a different room, and a button would be used to communicate the learner’s answers
-Voltage would increase with every wrong answer (15-450V)
-When participants showed reluctance the researchers gave verbal prompts
-Participant given sample shock - only genuine shock in experiment
-Pre -recorded of the ‘learner’ was played after every shock of him in pain, shouting etc
-Played until 300V when the learner pounded on the wall, and then did answer the next question
-315V - pounded on the wall again and then was silent for the rest of experiment

Question 6

Prods used

Answer 6

1. Please continue
2. The experiment requires you to continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no choice, you must go on

Question 7

Milgram’s results

Answer 7

100% went to 300V
12.5% stopped at 300V
65% went up to 450V
Participants displayed sign of stress such a nervous laughter, extreme tension, sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their nails and digged their fingernails into their hands

14 psychology students were asked to predict participant’s behaviour - predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450V

Participants debriefed after study - assured behaviour was normal, 84% said they were glad to have participated

Question 8

Milgram’s conclusion

Answer 8

Concluded that the Germans were no more obedient than any other nation

Question 9

Milgram’s conclusion

Answer 9

Concluded that the Germans were no more obedient than any other nation

Question 10

Milgram’s evaluation - positives

Answer 10

Additional research support
- Findings replicated by French documentary - Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death)
-Participants were paid to give (fake) shocks to actors in front of an audience
-80% delivered shocks of 460V to an apparently unconscious man

Question 11

Milgram’s evaluation - negatives

Answer 11

Low Internal Validity
- May not have investigated what they intended
-Milgram believed 75% of participants thought the shocks were genuine but Orne and Holland (1968) argued participates were ‘play-acting’
-Gina Perry (2013) - listened to tapes and believed only half believed the shocks were real - responding to demand charactersitcs
HOWEVER - Charles Sheridan and Richard King (1972) conducted investigation where students shocked puppies. 54% of men, 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock. (But don’t know how many in study)

Alternative interpretations for findings
- Alex Haslem et al (2014) - Milgram’s participants obeyed after the three prods, but all disobeyed after the fourth
-Social identity theory - participants only obeyed when they identified with aims study - when had to obey researcher, refused
-Milgram suggested that ‘identifying with the science’ was the reason for obedience

Question 12

Research support for Milgram

Answer 12

-Milgram can be replicated across cultures:

-MEEUS AND RAAIJMAKERS (1986)
-similar to Milgram’s - but caused psychological harm
-Used the Dutch

-Participants had to ‘interview’ the confederates (pretending to be job applicants)
-Told to ask the applicant general knowledge questions that would impact their chances on getting the job
-However, interviews/experimenter told the applicant they would not effect their chance of getting the job- thought they were lying
-If applicant answer wrong, the participant would deliver a stress remarks, until eventually the confederate would act stressed and ask the interview to stop
-Participants were pushed to continue
-Told the job was stressful so performance under pressure needed to be measured

-92% of participants continued with questions, despite stress of applicant

-Concluded that the Dutch being more liberal than American, they were still followed orders

-39 participants were used (mixture of age and gender), was highly controlled (reliable)
-LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY - task unfamiliar
-ETHICAL ISSUES - did not give informed consent, did not have right to withdraw. Were debriefed
-MILGRAM REPLICANTS ARE NOT CROSS CULTURAL - Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) - only 2 replications of Milgram that took place in cultures extremely different to USA between 1968 and 1985
-Might not be appropriate to say Milgram’s findings apply to all cultures

-May have known the interview was fake - LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY

Question 13

Situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 13

Proximity, location, uniform

Question 14

Situational variables definition

Answer 14

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour

Question 15

Why did Milgram have variations of his baseline study?

Answer 15

To test which variables had the largest effect on conformity

Question 16

Situational variables - proximity

Answer 16

-BASELINE - teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms, so teacher could hear learner but not see them.
- Proximity variation, they were in the same room, so obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
-Touch proximity variation - teachers forced learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when they refused to answer a question, and obedience rate dropped to 30%.
- Remote proximity variation - experimenter left room and gave teacher instructions over the phone obedience was reduced to 20.5% (participants tried to pretend they had given the shock)

Question 17

Situational variables - proximity explanation

Answer 17

Decreased proximity allow people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions

Question 18

Situational variables - location

Answer 18

• He conducted a variation of the study in a run-down building instead of a prestigious university where it was originally conducted.
• this meant that the experimenter had less authority, so obedience fell to 47.5%.
• This is still quite high but it less than the original 65%.

Question 19

Situational variables- location explanation

Answer 19

University gave Milgram legitimacy, resulting in higher obedience
But run -down office removes that
Obedience still remained at the ‘scientific nature’ of the experiment remained

Question 20

Situational variables- uniform

Answer 20

-BASELINE - experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority
- VARIATION - the experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure, and his role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes.
- Obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations.

Question 21

Situational variables- uniform explanation

Answer 21

Obedience encouraged by uniform -symbols of authority

Question 22

Research support for variables

Answer 22

Bickman (1974) - New York experiment
-3 confederates, one dressed as a milkman, one as a security guard, one in a jacket and suit asked random members of the public to do tasks such as pick litter or give change
-Twice as likely to perform task for security guard than suit or milkman
-Supports situational variables