MILGRAM

Question 1

What was the aim of Milgrams classic study of obedience?

Answer 1

To investigate how obedient people would be in a situation where following orders would mean breaking moral codes & harming another person : ‘We’re the Germans different?’

Question 2

Milgrams original sample

Answer 2

• 40 male volunteers
• aged 20-50
• diverse occupations and education levels
• Only from the US

Question 3

Milgrams Method

Answer 3

• Pps were told it was a memory test
• Were “randomly” allocated the role of a teacher or learner (we’re always the teacher)
• Were told they had to shock the learner (Mr Wallace) everytime they answered a memory question wrong, gradually increasing the voltage each time from 15v-450v (3/4 purposely wrong answers)
• The naïve pps were given a 45v sample shock before starting
• When the teacher wanted to stop, he was given 4 scripted ‘prods’
• At 180v Mr Wallace complained of having a weak heart
• At 300v he banged on the wall & demanded to be let out
• At 315v he refused to answer
• After the experiment pps were reunited with the unharmed Mr Wallace and ensured the shocks weren’t real
• They were informed their behaviour/actions was normal or admirable

Question 4

Milgrams study - Generalisability

Answer 4

• Only males
• Only US pps
• Wide range of backgrounds and ages
• Found very similar results with his variations (all women etc)

Question 5

Milgrams study - Reliability

Answer 5

• Standardised procedure followed (lab, script, recorded voice etc)
• Easily replicated

Question 6

Milgrams study - Application

Answer 6

• There are many examples in real life where we have to obey authorities figures
• This study demonstrates how obedience to authority figures works, and how we perceive symbols of authority

Question 7

Milgrams study - Validity

Answer 7

• LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY - because the tasks is artificial, electric shocks?
• Did pps really believe they were giving shocks (recorded voice?, ethics? etc)
• Mr Wallace’s reaction seemed genuine, equipment looked real, sample shock, most pps showed distress - (believable?)
• Could the pps behaviour and distress be a demand characteristic if they did not actually believe the study?
• A volunteer sample meant pps might have been more compliant or more authoritarian in character
  VARIATIONS
• In a run down office block = obedience levels fell to 48%
• Hoflings (1966) field experiment found similar results

Question 8

Milgrams study - Ethics

Answer 8

• People were deceived (memory test, shocks not real, heart condition)
• “Prods” may have put a lot of pressure on pps - withdrawal difficult
• Pps were under a lot of stress
• Milgram argued it was “momentary excitement” as there was no long term harm/anxiety/guilt
• Pps reintroduced to unharmed learner afterwards
• Ensured their actions were normal/desirable
• Checked up on by a psychiatrist a year after to make sure there were no long term affects
• Most pps said it was a useful experience and they were glad they took part - in a questionnaire afterwards
• This study would not have been possible is pps knew what was being investigated
• Results served a wider benefit to society

Question 9

Milgrams Study - Results

Answer 9

• Many pps showed signs of extreme stress (shaking, sweating, stuttering, nervous laughing, arguing) but continued to obey
• 100% of pps went to 300v
• 65% of pps went to 450
• 35% of pps stopped between 300v & 450v
• 56% fully believed the shocks were real
• 2% didn’t believe

Question 10

Milgrams Study - Conclusion

Answer 10

The power of the social situation is a powerful determinant of behaviour - we are socialised from an early age to recognise authority and obey those with perceived power

Question 11

Milgram are-assessed: Gina Perry

Answer 11

• She argues that Milgram manipulated his research to get the results he wanted
• Milgram claimed 65% went to the full level of obedience (450v), however in over half of his variations results were different
• Milgram actually used a lot of improvisation (was not as highly controlled as he claimed)
• Deviated from the script (more pressure)
• He left the lab to “check on the learner”, and said everything was okay to convince the teacher to carry on
• Many pps were sceptical (voice coming from a speaker in the corner) This affects validity