milgram Flashcards
when was milligrams study
1963
what was the aim
to investigate the level of blind obedience when authority figure tells you to deliver an electric shock. the germans are built different hypothesis
what sample was used
volunteer sample - advert in the local newspaper $4.50 an hour for taking part.
40 men aged 20-50 yo
various occupational background ie lawyers and doctors all from new haven America. study to place at Yale university
describe the confederates
experimenter was a 31yo high school teacher of biology teacher. impassive, stern mannerism. dressed in a grey technican’s coat.
victims was a 47-yearold accountant, trained for the role; he was of Irish- American stock, whom most observers found mild mannered and likable.
prior to the study milgram …
investigated what people thought would happen. they predicted 0-3% would go to 450V.
outline the procedure
- At the beginning of the study participants were in a room with another participant (confederate) and both were asked to pick a bit of paper from a container, this allocated the role of learner and teacher.
- This was a fix as the participant always got the role of teacher and the stooge the role of the learner
- They were led to another room where the stooge was strapped into a chair and electrodes were attached to them. The experimenter explained that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked. The effect was to make it impossible for him to escape from the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist, and electrode paste was applied “to avoid blisters and burns.” Subjects were told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room.
- The participant was given a slight shock to demonstrate that the equipment worked.
The participant was then taken to a different room where they were showed a shock generator labelled No subject in the experiment suspected that the instrument was merely a simulated shock generatorMethod
Lab based experiment
The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old high school teacher of biology. His manner was impassive, and his appearance somewhat stern throughout the experiment. He was dressed in a gray technician’s coat. The victim was played by a 47-yearold accountant, trained for the role; he was of Irish- American stock, whom most observers found mild mannered and likable.
Procedure - Prior to the study, Milgram investigated what people thought would occur. Fourteen Yale seniors, all psychology majors, were provided with a detailed description of the experimental situation. They were asked to reflect carefully on it, and to predict the behaviour of 100 hypothetical. they predicted only 0-3% would go up to 450 volts.
- At the beginning of the study participants were in a room with another participant (stooge) and both were asked to pick a bit of paper from a container, this allocated the role of learner and teacher.
- This was a fix as the participant always got the role of teacher and the stooge the role of the learner, 9both pieces of paper had teacher written on them)
- They were led to another room where the stooge was strapped into a chair and electrodes were attached to them. The experimenter explained that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked. The effect was to make it impossible for him to escape from the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist, and electrode paste was applied “to avoid blisters and burns.” Subjects were told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room.
- The participant was given a slight shock to demonstrate that the equipment worked.
The participant was then taken to a different room where they were showed a shock generator labelled No subject in the experiment suspected that the instrument was merely a simulated shock generator
Voltage Label
15 Slight shock
35 Moderate shock
135 Strong shock
195 Very strong shock
255 Intense shock
315 Extremely intense shock
375 Danger: severe shock
430/450 XXX
- The learning task involved The subject to read a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms.
- if it was wrong the teacher would give the learner an electric shock using the generator. Each time the learner gave a wrong answer the shocks would increase by 15 volts. He is also instructed to announce the voltage level before administering a shock.
- Each time the participant hesitated to give a shock the experimenter stood in the corner of the room would prompted the teacher to continue
1. Please continue, Please go on
2. it is absolutely essential that you continue
3. The experiment requires that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must go on - The prods were always made in sequence: Only if Prod 1 had been unsuccessful, could Prod 2 be used. If the subject refused to obey the experimenter after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was at all times firm, but not impolite.
- The learner gave no verbal feedback, however they also followed a script. At 300volts and 315 volts the learner would pound the wall and after this point fell silent. This was classed as a wrong answer and therefore required the teacher to increase the voltage and shock the learner. From this point on, the learner’s answers no longer appear on the four-way panel.
- Experimental sessions were recorded and occasional photographs were taken through one-way mirrors. Notes were kept on any unusual behaviour occurring during the course of the experiments.
- On occasion, additional observers were directed to write objective descriptions of the subjects’ behaviour. The latency and duration of shocks were measured by accurate timing devices.
- After the experiment a full debrief was given
- They were reunited with the learner to see no harm had come to them
- Informed their behaviour was normal in this given situation
- Psychometric measures (projective tests and attitude scales) were used to see if they were ok
- Questionnaires were given months after as a post check up (84% said they were happy to have taken part and learnt something important about themselves, only 2% were unhappy about their part in the study)
what were the results
of the40 subjects, 5 refused to obey commands beyond 300V 65% went all the way to 450V. they showed nervous laughter. 3 ppts had full blown seizures
give strengths
high reliability - standardised procedure so could be replicated (burger 2009) high re-test reliability. can establish a cause and effect relationship.
high internal validity - extraneous variable were controlled for such as noise, distractions, other peoples opinions.
give weaknesses
ethics - removed right to withdraw, caused psychological harm and excessive anxiety. ppts were deceived. ppts weren’t screened for prior to the study
low generalisability - aims were to look at culture but the sample were all from new haven so it lacks cultural diversity. also volunteers so they would have been motivated.
give application
low, it demonstrates the behaviour but doesn’t explain why. leads to scapegoating and not taking full responsibility for actions. affects the justice system. not preventing the reoccurrence of another mass genocide.
