Milgram(1963)

Question 1

What is the area of this study

Answer 1

Social

Question 2

What was the aim of the study

Answer 2

The aim of the study was to investigate the process of obedience by testing how far an individual will go in obeying an authority figure to deliver electric shocks to another person, even when the command breaches the moral code that an individual should not hurt another person against their will

Question 3

What was the research method

Answer 3

Lab study - controlled observation

Question 4

How many participants were there and what were their gender?

Answer 4

40 ppts

All male

Question 5

How were the volunteers/ ppts recruited?

Answer 5

Via a newspaper advert in a local paper in Connecticut USA.

Question 6

What did the advert say the study was about ?

Answer 6

The advert asked males to take part in a study of memory and learning at Yale Uni.
Between the ages of 20-50 from a range of occupational and educational backgrounds.

Question 7

How much were the ppts paid upon arrival?

Answer 7

$4.50 upon arrival for their participation

Question 8

How many psychologists did milgram tell about his procedure?

Answer 8

14 psychologists

Question 9

What were the psychologists asked to do prior to the study ?

Answer 9

They were asked to estimate the percentage of participants who would administer the highest level of shock(450volts)

Question 10

What did the psychologists estimate about the amount of ppts that would go up to 450 volts

Answer 10

Estimates ranged from 1-3%

Mean (1.2%)

Question 11

How were the participants always the teacher

Answer 11

The ppt arrived at Yale uni and was asked to draw lots for the role of the teacher and learner in a rigged draw, so they always became a teacher

Question 12

Did the teacher receive a sample shock ?

Answer 12

Yes of 45 volts

Question 13

How were the ppts tricked into believing the learner was just another ppt ?

Answer 13

They saw the “learner” strapped into an electric chair

Question 14

Where was the “teacher” (ppt) sitting

Answer 14

The teacher was sat infringe of a shock generator which had 30 switches labelled from 15/450 volts, under which were descriptions “slight shock, danger, severe shock- XXX”

Question 15

What did the experimenter tell the ppts before the experiment began (about the volts)

Answer 15

The experimenter told the ppts “although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage”

Question 16

We’re the responses pre- recorded ? I.e cries/ shouts screams

Answer 16

Yes the responses were pre - recorded
At 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall.
After 315 volts he went silent and did not response to any further questions

Question 17

What happened if the participant didn’t want to continue with the experiment

Answer 17

The experiment would respond with

• please continue
• the experiment requires you to continue
• it is absolutely essential that you continue
• you have no other choice you must go on

Question 18

How was data gathered

Answer 18

Data was gathered through observations made by both the experimenter and others who observed the process through one way mirrors.

Question 19

Were photographs taken for observation

Answer 19

Yes occasional photographs were takes the rough the one- way mirrors and notes were made on unusual behaviours

Question 20

Debrief

Answer 20

At the end of the study, the teacher was reunited with the learner and, assured no shocks had been given and was thoroughly debriefed about the true nature and purpose of the experiment

Question 21

Did milgram interview the ppts after the experiment ? And if so, for what?

Answer 21

Yes milgram interviewed the ppts about their attitudes towards their experience

Question 22

Results: how many volunteers obeyed up to 300 volts?

Answer 22

All 40 participants

Question 23

How many continued to 450 volts?

Answer 23

65%/ 26 ppts

5 dropped out after 300v and between 315 and 375, a further 9 dropped

Question 24

What were the observations made of the ppts during the experiment ?

Answer 24

Many ppts showed signs of extreme stress- sweating, trembling, nervous laughing, biting their lips and groaning.
Some appeared to be crying
3 had full blown seizures

Question 25

Conclusions

Answer 25

• the majority of ppts showed a high level of obedience to an authority figure
• ‘normal men’ had obeyed to the point where they believe they were actually harming a fellow ppt. Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary
• the power of obedience outweighed their personal moral beliefs that it was wrong to injure others
• people obey because certain situational factors lead them to suspend their sense of autonomy
• individual differences such as personality, influence the extent to which people will be obedient

Question 26

Factors affecting obedience

Answer 26

• the experiment was in a prestigious university and the experimenter appeared authoritative
• the learner had also volunteered to participate and so was willing
• the participant was paid to participate
• the teaching/ learning role had apparantley appeared by chance
• the situation was entirely new to the ppts so they had no past experience to guide their behaviour and there was no one for the participant to discuss things with
• the ppt was told the shocks weren’t harmful
• the leached experienced conflict between two deeply ingrained behaviour dispositions: not to harm vs obedience to authority

Question 27

Sample

Answer 27

• All volunteers may not represent a full section of society
• all male ppts

Question 28

Ecological validity

Answer 28

Low ecological validity
Artificial/ lab based environment and a task which is very unrealistic- not something the ppts were likely to have been asked to do in their everyday life

Question 29

Reliability

Answer 29

Milgram had a standardised procedure
Including standardised responses from the learner and prods from the experimenter
This makes his experimental procedure easy to replicate and therefore makes it highly likely that his results are reliable
(HIGH RELIABILITY)

Question 30

Ethics

Answer 30

Major ethics with this study
- deception- ppts were deceived as to the nature of the study
- fully informed consent - as ppts didn’t know the nature of the study, they could not give informed consent
- right to withdraw- if ppts were reluctant to give the next shock, the prods were used to encourage them to continue, and thus discourage withdrawal
- protection from harm- the ppts were at significant risk of psychological harm because of the stress they were out under in this experiment. Milgram defended his experiment by arguing they had no way of predicting the reaction of the ppts- his results were quite unexpected
Milgram did a follow up with the ppts 12 months later which indicated they had not suffered any long term harm

Question 31

Practical application

Answer 31

Gives us indication of factors which we may be able to alter to encourage obedience in settings such as hospitals/ schools.