Milgram

Question 1

obedience

Answer 1

A type of social influence whereby someone acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure. The person receiving the order would not have behaved this way without being ordered to.

Question 2

aim

Answer 2

To test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis.
To find out if the atrocities committed in WW2 were due to Germans being more obedient than others.
Milgram wanted to find out if ordinary American people would obey an unjust order to hurt another person.

Question 3

procedure

Answer 3

40 male volunteers, all paid $4.
They were told it was an experiment about punishment and learning.
They were ordered to give electric shocks to another participant for wrong answers.
Shocks started at 15V and ended at 450V.
Verbal prods were used to encourage participants to continue throughout the experiment.

Question 4

findings and conclusions

Answer 4

All participants gave up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V (the highest).
When Milgram asked other academics before they study what % they thought would obey, they answered with 3%.
Participants were stressed and upset and most participants verbally argued but continued to obey.
Demonstrated that obedience was due to situational factors rather than personality factors.
The presence of the authority figure and the verbal prods they used caused the participant to continue.
This implies that any person (not just German) would behave like this in the same situation.

Question 5

variations

Answer 5

When the learner was silent throughout, 100% of participants went up to 450V.
When the participant only reads out the words and a confederate gives the shocks, obedience was 92.5% showing that obedience increases when responsibility for shock is reduced.
When the study was performed in a rundown office block, obedience was 48%, showing that the original setting has an effect because it increased legitimacy.
When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, obedience was 40%, showing that increasing proximity decreases obedience.
When the teacher forces the learner’s hand onto a shock plate, obedience was 30%, showing that increasing proximity decreases obedience.
When the experimenter was not present and instead phoned the orders in, obedience was 20.5%, showing that proximity to the authority is important for obedience.
When the experimenter is an ordinary member of the public (no lab coat), obedience was 20%, linking to lack of uniform.

Question 6

evaluation - ethical issues

Answer 6

Unethical because there was an issue with right to withdraw - participants were strongly advised to continue with the study, participants were deceived, and there was no protection from psychological harm.

Question 7

evaluation - lab experiment

Answer 7

Lab experiment therefore low ecological validity and results cannot be generalised and applied to everyday life.
Only male Americans took part giving the experiment low population validity therefore results cannot be generalised.

Question 8

evaluation - replicability

Answer 8

Replicated in France in 2010 and 80% of participants went up to 450V.