Milgram

Question 1

What was experiment 1

Answer 1

Telephonic instructions - experimenter left room and gave instructions to ‘teacher’ by telephone

Question 2

Exp 1- aim

Answer 2

To see whether having experimenter in room affected obedience levels

Question 3

Exp-1 procedure

Answer 3

Experimenter at start of experiment was in room but left lab to give instructions by telephone. Drop from 48.5% to 23.5%. Participants lied to experimenter about giving higher shocks, instead they lowered the shock levels when asked to increase by experimenter

Question 4

Exp-1 conclusion

Answer 4

When experimenter is not face to face with participants it’s easier to obey. Physical presence is important force for obedience

Question 5

What is experiment 13

Answer 5

Ordinary man gives orders-removing someone of perceived authority

Question 6

Exp-13 aim

Answer 6

See whether order given by someone without perceived authority is obedience

Question 7

Exp-13 procedures

Answer 7

Experimenter initially gave instructions about admin, stealing electric shock but they’re called away and leave room. Other person in room initially given task of recording times, participant thinks he’s another participant. Person makes suggestion of increasing level of shock by 1 step increasments when learner makes mistake. Experimenter leaving creates awkward atmosphere that undermines credibility of experiment. 16 of 20 didn’t obey the ‘ordinary man’ instructions. 4 of participants went to max shock level, if participant refused ‘ordinary man’ suggests change of roles , all 16 watched ‘ordinary man’ give shocks , all of them protested and 5 tried to restrain ‘man’ or disconnect shock generator

Question 8

Baseline

Answer 8

Experiments moved form prestigious Yale uni to run down office in nearby town procedures. Experiment was relocated from Yale to mall commercial office in Bridgeport an industrial city near Yale. Participants told that reasearch was being undertaken by a private company(research articulate of Bridgeport). Experiment conducted in 3rd room office suite in a run-down commercial building which was sparsely finished. Obedience levels dropped from 65% to 47.5%

Question 9

Baseline conclusions

Answer 9

Interview transcripts show that participants voiced their doubts to legitimacy of experiment and concerns, fears for learners safety. Seems that the prestigious context is in important situation factor. Netherless the link to scientific research seemed to encourage relatively high obedience levels

Question 10

Are Germans different -aim

Answer 10

Set out to test whether Germans have basic character flaw which is a readiness to obey authority without question ,no matter how outrageous the authority command

Question 11

Are Germans different-procedure

Answer 11

Developed lab experiment which procedures systematic was to measure obedience. Recruited participants by newspaper ads. Participants at Yale then met with experiments in white lab coat.
Then met another man in 50s. Electrode is connected to shock generator in next room.

Question 12

Are Germans Different-procedure 2

Answer 12

Experimenter progressively states participant needs to carry on
1-please continue or please go on
2-experiment requires that you continue
3-it’s absolutely essential that you continue
4- you have no choice, you must go on

Question 13

Are Germans different-results

Answer 13

65% delivered full and fatal 450 volt shocks. Learner gave out arguing scream at 285v refusing to answer at 315v and only science after that. Most participants protested, groaned, argues and come cases seized by firs of neevousness giggling

Question 14

Are Germans different -strengths

Answer 14

Very well controlled procedure had set order and prepared the victims response carefully, made effort to make the experience each participant the same to avoid bias, means obedience was due to respond to authority figure, was firm.
Controlled procedures mean that for study was replicable and so could be targeted for reliability

Question 15

Evaluation(weakness)

Answer 15

Orne and Holland (1968) argued that Milgram a experiment lacked experimental realism validity due to lacked experimental because why didn’t the researcher do the test they didn’t believe the set-up. Milgram argued people in experimental setting will almost believe anything and video evidence strongly supports that participants believed in experimental set-up stress caused

Question 16

Evaluation 2(weakness)

Answer 16

O and H also said that participants behaviour was being influenced by demand characteristics. Milgram wasn’t observing obedience but how people behave in an experiment
Further objection to Milgram that participants were paid €4 dollars to take part therefore what was being measured is how people behave in social contact rather than obedience

Question 17

Evaluation 3(weakness)

Answer 17

Milgram (1999) argued that the experiment in many ways follow rules similar to social situation and therefore in that sense are true to life . Ecological validity can be argued that it lacked this as the was not normal to mean electric show to encourage learning . Therefore lack mundane realism

Question 18

Evaluation(strength)

Answer 18

-Highly standardised + controlled. Each participant briefed in same way,verbal prods,feedback and apparatus same.
-behavioural data gathered about how long to press buttons. Both quantitative and qualitative observations made, making research highly credible in terms of being scientific