Milgram Flashcards
Context
To look at the influence of people who have authority. He referenced the behaviour of German SS officer in WW2 suggesting people obeying orders were as guilty as those giving orders & to prove that Americans were genetically different to Germans so won’t obey to immoral tasks
Aim
Why do people obey authority?
Conditions encouraging obedient behaviour?
Conditions encouraging independent behaviour?
Method + procedure
Lab experiment with no IVs
.Participants were deceived as they thought they were taking part in a study of memory and learning at Yale uni
. Randomly decide who would be the learner and the teacher. Mr Wallace (confederate would always be learner) who would be strapped to an electric shock chair in another room
.Teachers were given sample shocks to prove machine was working and read out a list of word pairs and L. had to say the right one
. Mr W had a script of mainly wrong answers
. T would give an electric shock for every wrong answer. Intensity of shocks: from 15V to 450V
Procedure
. At 300V, L. ponded at the wall and shouted to be ‘let out’
. After 315V L. pounded on the wall again but remain silent afterwards
. When T. felt reluctant, experimenter would use 4 prods, e.g.
1. ‘Please continue’
4. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
or would reassure T. that ‘Although schocks may be painful, there’s no permanent tissue damage, so please continue’
Sample
.Self-volunteered by newspapers/ direct mailing
.Each paid $4
. 40 men of ages between 20-50 from diff. occupational backgrounds
. Experimenter- A bio teacher
learner- Mr Wallace
Results
. 65% went all the way with the schocks
. 22.5% stopped at 315V
. Participants showed signs of distress e.g. sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously and some had seizures
Conclusion
Concept of agentic state- P’s passed the responsibility of own actions to experimenter as they were only following orders
. After experiment, participants were reassured that electric shocks weren’t real and their behaviour was normal
Aspects encouraging participants to be highly obedient
- P’s were paid so had to follow instructions
- Experimenter wore a lab coat- authoritative figure
- Experimenter ensured to take teachers’ responsibility of actions
- Setting- prestigious and respected uni so experiment must be safe
Evaluation- Perry
Sample
+ve: . Covered diff age groups
. from diff. occupational backgrounds
-ve: .Small sample- ethnocentric
. All men
All white
. All from middle class
Reliability
+ve: . Lab experiment- highly controlled
. Experiment was repeated a number of times + in diff. variations replicating similar results
-ve: . Qualitative data was diff. for everyone
. Perry argued that not all elements were standardised e.g. R. went off script to coerce P’s
Validity
+ve: . High- p’s weren’t aware of actual aim
. High internal validity- The study accurately measured what it meant to measure + standardised prods and screams so similar reactions from P’s
-ve: . Lied to
. Low ecological validity- due to artificial env. teachers won’t shock learners irl
Ethics
+ve: . Were debriefed later
. Anonymity
-ve: . Use of deception
. Lack of protection for P’s e.g. psychological harm
. e. went off script to coerce P’s to continue
Pressure from E., interfered with right to withdrawal
. After debriefing, some P’s were still confused, some weren’t debriefed at all
How can his study be considered to be part of the social area [4]
Due to key assumption that situations we are in influence our behaviour and thought process e.g P’s in front of experimenter with lab coat- authoritative figure, so more pressured to follow instructions+ use of 4 prods further placed pressure to obey + paid to do experiment so had to follow instructions
