Milgram Flashcards
1
Q
Background
A
To test whether Germans were different and if they had a distinctive quality that made them obey during the mass killing
2
Q
Psychology being investigated
A
Agency theory
3
Q
Situational factor
A
Explaining events in reference to the social processes rather than the characteristics of the individual
4
Q
Dispositional factor
A
explaining events using personal factors i.e. the Germans obeyed destructive orders because they were different
5
Q
Obedience def
A
complying with the orders of an authority figure
6
Q
Moral strain def
A
going along with the orders of an authority figure even though we know it is wrong
7
Q
Agentic state
A
giving up free will
8
Q
Autonomous state
A
acting on our own free will and choosing whether to be obedient
9
Q
Participant thought the aim was
A
effect of punishment on learning
10
Q
Aims (2)
A
- to test whether germans were different
- to test how far participants will obey the orders of an authority figure,
(specifically if the obedience will lead to
physical harm)
11
Q
How were participants made to believe the legitimacy of the study (2)
A
- authenticity of the shock generator with a brand name
- sample shock of 45V
12
Q
IV (3)
A
- source of command
- form of command
- general social setting
13
Q
DV
A
Degree of obedience
14
Q
DV operationalised how
A
by the max. shock the participant was willing to administer
15
Q
Method
A
Controlled observation and lab experiment
16
Q
Sample size
A
40 men
17
Q
Sample locale
A
New Haven
18
Q
Sample age
A
20-50
19
Q
Examples of sample occupations (3)
A
- engineers
- teachers
- salesmen
20
Q
Sampling technique (3)
A
Volunteer
Recruited from newspaper ad
Received $4.50 for their time
21
Q
Standardised procedures (6)
A
- same rigged draw
- same briefing
- same confederate
- sample shock
- same prods
- same answers of the learners
22
Q
Mode rating of pain of the shock generator
A
13.42
23
Q
Prod 1
A
You must continue
24
Q
Prod 2
A
The experiment requires that you continue
25
Prod 3
It is absolutely essential that you continue
26
Prod 4
You have no other choice, you must go on
27
Yale university student prediction of obedience
0-3%
28
Describe what participants were told after drawing lots (4)
- we know very little about the effects of punishment on learning
- this is because almost no scientific studies have been conducted
- so in this study we are bringing together people from different occupations
- we want to know the effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners
29
Describe confederate (4)
- Mr. Wallace
- Irish- American
- accountant
- 47 years old
30
Description of experimenter (4)
- stern appearance
- impassive manner
- wore technician's coat
- 30 year old high school teacher
31
What happened after the draw
Mr. Wallace was taken to another room and strapped into a chair with electrodes attached
32
Describe shock generator (6)
- had rows of 30 switches each labelled with voltage
- voltage rising in 15V intervals up to 450 volts
- Last two were labelled XXX
- When switch is pressed, a red light appeared
- then an electric buzzing was emmitted
- a blue light labelled voltage energizer would light up
33
What label was underneath the switches 375-420V
Danger/ Severe shock
34
Describe sample shock (3)
- given before they took on the role of the teacher
- shock of 45V
- applied to wrist
35
Describe learning task (4)
- paired associate learning task
- participant read out a series of words
- participant read out one word with four terms
- learner had to indicate the original pair
36
Describe rigged draw (3)
- participants drew slips from hat
- both slips had the word 'teacher' on it
- the participant chose first
37
Describe preliminary run (3)
- participant given 10 words to read
- three words were neutral (learner would ger correct)
- seven of these were 'incorrect'
38
Procedure followed by Wallace (6)
- predetermined responses
- three wrong answers, one correct
- no vocal responses till 300V
- at 300V, pounding against wall
- learner pounds again at 315V
- no answers from learner
39
What did the experimenter say if the participant asked if the learner was suffering permanent injury (3)
- although the shocks are painful
- there is no real permanent tissue damage
- so please go on
40
What happened each time the learner made a mistake
Experimenter ordered the participant to give a shock, increasing it after every mistake
41
Up until 300V, what did Wallace do
nothing
42
what did Wallace do at 300V and 315V
he pounded the wall
43
When was the participant considered to have completed the procedure
when they refused to give any more shocks
44
Number who finished the study
26/40
45
Number who dropped out after 300V
5/40
46
Surprising findings (2)
- sheer strength of obedience shown by participants
- extraordinary tension generated by procedures
47
What were participants told in the debrief (2)
- the shocks were not real and the learner was not harmed
- real purpose of study was to test obedeince
48
How was data collected (3)
- interview taken with open ended questions
- photos taken through one way mirror
- notes on unusual behaviour
49
Observation results (2)
- there were signs of nervousness (sweating, stuttering, nervous laughter)
- 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures
50
Comments made by the participant that did not complete the study (2)
- I think he is trying to communicate. I don't think this is very humane
- He's banging in there. I'm going to chicken out. I'd like to continue but I can't do that to a man
51
Conclusions (3)
1. People are much more obedient to destructive orders than we might expect
2. People find the experience of receiving destructive orders very stressful
3. Results supported the situational hypotheses
52
Application to real life (2)
- used as empirical evidence for the agency theory
- explains why humans engage in destructive obedience
53
Situational factors (3)
- legitimacy of the context, all participants reached 300V
- money given to the participants
- legitimacy of the experimenter, majority obeyed
54
Individual factors (3)
Personal choice to go on
Momentum of compliance
Decision to obey- person's morals
55
Generalisable
Low due to androcentric sample
Range of participants was high allowing for increased professions of people
56
Design
Independant measures
57
Ethics - deception
lied to about aim and shocking wallace
58
Ethics- right to withdraw
prods made it difficult for participants to withdraw
59
Reliable, yes
lab experiment has high levels of standardisation
60
Ecological validity, no
low because it was done in an artificial setting
61
Conflicts faced by the participant (3)
- who they should listen to (experimenter or learner)
- advancement of science and the plight of the victim
- ethics- obeying or hurting someone
62
Why were there standardised procedures (3)
- to allow for easy replication
- to test for reliability
- e.g. knowing the sample shock is 45V allows for replication
