Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social approach > Milgram > Flashcards

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Psychology being investigated

A

Agency theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Situational factor

A

Explaining events in reference to the social processes rather than the characteristics of the individual

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Dispositional factor

A

explaining events using personal factors i.e. the Germans obeyed destructive orders because they were different

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Obedience def

A

complying with the orders of an authority figure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Moral strain def

A

going along with the orders of an authority figure even though we know it is wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Agentic state

A

giving up free will

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Autonomous state

A

acting on our own free will and choosing whether to be obedient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Participant thought the aim was

A

effect of punishment on learning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

IV (3)

A
  • source of command
  • form of command
  • general social setting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

DV

A

Degree of obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

DV operationalised how

A

by the max. shock the participant was willing to administer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Method

A

Controlled observation and lab experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Sample size

A

40 men

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Sample locale

A

New Haven

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Sample age

A

20-50

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Examples of sample occupations (3)

A
  • engineers
  • teachers
  • salesmen
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Sampling technique (3)

A

Volunteer
Recruited from newspaper ad
Received $4.50 for their time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Standardised procedures (6)

A
  • same rigged draw
  • same briefing
  • same confederate
  • sample shock
  • same prods
  • same answers of the learners
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Mode rating of pain of the shock generator

A

13.42

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Prod 1

A

You must continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Prod 2

A

The experiment requires that you continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Prod 3

A

It is absolutely essential that you continue

26
Q

Prod 4

A

You have no other choice, you must go on

27
Q

Yale university student prediction of obedience

A

0-3%

28
Q

Describe what participants were told after drawing lots (4)

A
  • 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
Q

Describe confederate (4)

A
  • Mr. Wallace
  • Irish- American
  • accountant
  • 47 years old
30
Q

Description of experimenter (4)

A
  • stern appearance
  • impassive manner
  • wore technician’s coat
  • 30 year old high school teacher
31
Q

What happened after the draw

A

Mr. Wallace was taken to another room and strapped into a chair with electrodes attached

32
Q

Describe shock generator (6)

A
  • 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
Q

What label was underneath the switches 375-420V

A

Danger/ Severe shock

34
Q

Describe sample shock (3)

A
  • given before they took on the role of the teacher
  • shock of 45V
  • applied to wrist
35
Q

Describe learning task (4)

A
  • 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
Q

Describe rigged draw (3)

A
  • participants drew slips from hat
  • both slips had the word ‘teacher’ on it
  • the participant chose first
37
Q

Describe preliminary run (3)

A
  • participant given 10 words to read
  • three words were neutral (learner would ger correct)
  • seven of these were ‘incorrect’
38
Q

Procedure followed by Wallace (6)

A
  • 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
Q

What did the experimenter say if the participant asked if the learner was suffering permanent injury (3)

A
  • although the shocks are painful
  • there is no real permanent tissue damage
  • so please go on
40
Q

What happened each time the learner made a mistake

A

Experimenter ordered the participant to give a shock, increasing it after every mistake

41
Q

Up until 300V, what did Wallace do

A

nothing

42
Q

what did Wallace do at 300V and 315V

A

he pounded the wall

43
Q

When was the participant considered to have completed the procedure

A

when they refused to give any more shocks

44
Q

Number who finished the study

A

26/40

45
Q

Number who dropped out after 300V

A

5/40

46
Q

Surprising findings (2)

A
  • sheer strength of obedience shown by participants
  • extraordinary tension generated by procedures
47
Q

What were participants told in the debrief (2)

A
  • the shocks were not real and the learner was not harmed
  • real purpose of study was to test obedeince
48
Q

How was data collected (3)

A
  • interview taken with open ended questions
  • photos taken through one way mirror
  • notes on unusual behaviour
49
Q

Observation results (2)

A
  • there were signs of nervousness (sweating, stuttering, nervous laughter)
  • 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures
50
Q

Comments made by the participant that did not complete the study (2)

A
  • 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
Q

Conclusions (3)

A
  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
Q

Application to real life (2)

A
  • used as empirical evidence for the agency theory
  • explains why humans engage in destructive obedience
53
Q

Situational factors (3)

A
  • legitimacy of the context, all participants reached 300V
  • money given to the participants
  • legitimacy of the experimenter, majority obeyed
54
Q

Individual factors (3)

A

Personal choice to go on
Momentum of compliance
Decision to obey- person’s morals

55
Q

Generalisable

A

Low due to androcentric sample
Range of participants was high allowing for increased professions of people

56
Q

Design

A

Independant measures

57
Q

Ethics - deception

A

lied to about aim and shocking wallace

58
Q

Ethics- right to withdraw

A

prods made it difficult for participants to withdraw

59
Q

Reliable, yes

A

lab experiment has high levels of standardisation

60
Q

Ecological validity, no

A

low because it was done in an artificial setting

61
Q

Conflicts faced by the participant (3)

A
  • who they should listen to (experimenter or learner)
  • advancement of science and the plight of the victim
  • ethics- obeying or hurting someone
62
Q

Why were there standardised procedures (3)

A
  • to allow for easy replication
  • to test for reliability
  • e.g. knowing the sample shock is 45V allows for replication

Social approach (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions