Milgram (1963) - 'Behavioural Study of Obedience'

Question 1

What is obedience

Answer 1

• a social influence that causes a person to act in response to a direct order form a figure with perceived authority
• (they would’t have done it if they weren’t told to)

Question 2

What was the aim of Milgram’s research

Answer 2

• to test the ‘Germans are different hypothesis’ which explains obedience in terms of dispositional factions (e.g. personalities). In other words - there was something different about Germans that caused their behaviour
• Milgram wanted to do this by investigating destructive obedience

Question 3

What is destructive obedience

Answer 3

Compliance with the direct or indirect orders from authority that results in negative outcomes, such as harm to innocent victims

Question 4

When talking about the methodology, what do you talk about

Answer 4

• location (lab)
• wasn’t an experiment (a controlled observation)
• the sample
• how the sample was obtained

Question 5

Describe the methodology in terms of location

Answer 5

• Conducted in a Lab environment at Yale university
• meant that the environment was very controlled and it had good access to equipment such as the shock machine

Question 6

Describe the methodology in terms of it being an observation

Answer 6

• controlled observation
• observed via a one-way mirror

Question 7

Describe the sample

Answer 7

• 40 males aged between 20 and 50 years
• had a range of jobs from postal clerks to engineers
• varied in level of education, some hadn’t finished primary school and some had a doctorate

Question 8

Describe the methodology in terms of how the sample was obtained

Answer 8

• via self-selecting
• by an ad in a New haven newspaper
• paid $4.50 to participate in the study, regardless of if they stay or not

Question 9

Describe the procedure (up to sample shock)

Answer 9

1) participants arrive at lab at Yale University and are greeted by ‘experimenter’ and another ‘participant’
2) the participant is told by the ‘experimenter’ that the study is about learning and punishment
3) who plays what role (teacher or learner) is determined by drawing lots (picking pieces of paper with roles on them)
4) however, this lots was rigged. The other ‘participant’ is actually a confederate and both pieces of paper said teacher. And the confederate declares that they drew the slip of paper that says learner
5) after choosing roles, they’re taken into an adjacent room where the ‘learner’ is strapped into the electric chair. They’re told the leather straps are to prevent excessive movement and that the electrode paste is for avoiding blisters or burns from the shocks
6) the teacher (participant) is told that the electrode is linked to a shock generator in the adjoining room. In response to a Q by the learner they are told that “although the shocks are extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage
7) teacher is taken to that room and given a sample shock of 45 volts before they begin the learning task (demonstrates machine is real)
8) the task is a ‘pair-associate learning task’. The subject read a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first words of the pair along with 4 terms. The learner says which of the four terms was paired with the first word and communicated his answer by pressing one of the 4 switches. If he got it wrong, he was shock

Question 10

Describe the procedure from the learning task onwards

Answer 10

1) the task is a ‘pair-associate learning task’. The subject read a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first words of the pair along with 4 terms. The learner says which of the four terms was paired with the first word and communicated his answer by pressing one of the 4 switches. If he got it wrong, he was shock
2) learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the learning task based on a schedule of approximately 3 wrong answers to one correct answer. When 300 volts is reached the learner is heard to pound on the wall and from this point on the learners answers no longer appear on the answer box
3) there is pounding again at the 315 volt level then there are no more answers or responses
4) if the teacher hesitates = 4 verbal prods. ‘Please continue’, ‘the experiment requires that you continue’, ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’, and ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
5) these prods were used in sequence
6) the max voltage level of each participant was prepared to go to before refusing was recorded. Notes were also taken on verbal/physical/emotional reactions via a one way mirror. Audio recordings and photographs were taken
7) after the research, the teacher is thoroughly ‘dehoaxed’ (debriefed) and the experimenter reunites the teacher and learner. They are then interviewed about their experience

Question 11

Describe the findings

Answer 11

Split into 2
- the qualitative findings
- quantitative findings

Question 12

Describe the quantitative findings

Answer 12

• Prior to experiment, milgram surveyed 14 Yale psychology professors. They estimated that 0-3% of participants would administer 450 volts
• the findings actually showed that 100% administered the 300 volts. And only 10% dropped out at 315 volts
• A total of 26 of the 40 participants (65%) administered the full 450 volts (obedient). And only 35% defied the experimenter’s authority (defiant)

Question 13

Describe the qualitative findings

Answer 13

• Milgram recorded their behaviours. Most showed signs of extremes tensions
• the listed behaviours were:
  1) sweated
  2) trembled
  3) stuttered
  4) bit their lips
  5) groan
  6) dug their fingers into their own flesh
• 14/40 displayed nervous laughter
• 3/40 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures

Question 14

What was the conclusions

Answer 14

• it is the circumstances in which the participants found themselves that amalgamated to create a situation in which it proved difficult to disobey
• he suggested 13 elements in this situation that had contributed to these levels of obedience

Question 15

What were the 13 elements in this situation that had contributed to these levels of obedience in the conclusion

Answer 15

• the location of the study at a prestigious university provided authority
• participants assumed that the experimenter knew what he was doing and had a worthy purpose, so should be followed
• the participant didn’t wish to disrupt the study because he felt under obligation to the experimenter due to his voluntary consent to take part
• it was a novel situation for the participant, who therefore didn’t know how to behave. If it had been possible to discuss the situation with others the participant might’ve behaved different;y
• the participant had very little time to resolve the conflict at 300 volts, and he didn’t know that the victim would remain silent for the rest of the experiment
• the participant assumed that the discomfort caused was minimal and temporary, and that the scientific gains were important
• the conflict was between 2 deeply ingrained tendencies — not to harm someone, and to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities

Question 16

Describe Milgram’s Agency theory

Answer 16

• Milgram proposed the agency theory to explain obedience
• he suggests that when faced with commands from legitimate authority figures we lose our sense of responsibility for our own actions and become agents of other’s wishes
• so, the levels of obedience found in Milgram’s study resulted from the experimenter as the authority figure taking responsibility for the consequences of the obedience
• for the participants there is a shift from an autonomous state (where they feel in control and responsible for their actions) to an agentic state (where they regard themselves as ‘the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes’)

Question 17

Describe the 2 confederates

Answer 17

1) The ‘experimenter’
- he’s wearing a grey technician’s coat
- he’s 31 years old
- his manner was mild mannered

2) The ‘learner’
- he’s not really another participant but is instead an actor
- he’s 47 years old
- his real job is an accountant
- he was described as being likeable

Question 18

When evaluating this research what do you talk about for evaluating the validity

Answer 18

• internal validity (talking about situational variables + demand characteristics + researcher bias)
• external validity (taking about ecological validity + population validity + historical validity)

Question 19

Evaluate how Milgram tried to control situational variables

Answer 19

• controlled the environment
• standardised instructions/procedures/questions and answers
• same voltage and machine

Question 20

Evaluate how Milgram tried to control demand characteristics

Answer 20

• it’s claimed that participants weren’t really deceived by the study and didn’t think that they were administering shock to the learner and that therefore their behaviour is a result of demand characteristics
• they didn’t give shocks because of obedience, they gave them in an effort to please the experimenter and make the experiment work
  However…
• 75% said it was real from follow up Qs
• feeling the sample shock + the banging on the wall = help make it believable

Question 21

Evaluate how researcher bias effected internal validity

Answer 21

• Is it possible that Milgram influenced the participants behaviour in any way or manipulated results?
• no because…
  1) he wasn’t in the room, he was watching through a 1 way mirror and had no interaction with the participants
  2) his results are nothing like his predictions

Question 22

Evaluate the ecological validity

Answer 22

• highly controlled environment = bad
• It’s not the same extreme task as what the soldiers did(e.g. comparing delivering shocks to holocaust). the consequences aren’t the same
• however, it is fairly reflective because it is following orders to harm someone
• however, it isn’t very reflective of everyday obedience

Question 23

Evaluate the population validity

Answer 23

Gender
- only male sample = unrepresentative = are females different? = we don’t know because they weren’t tested
- Milgram justifies it because he was talking about the soldiers from WW2, these soldiers were all male = participants male
Race
- Milgram aimed to show how Germans are different by using participants who weren’t German
- American men in New Haven = not representative of all non-Germans
Culture
- obedience varies from culture to culture. Things such as social interactions such as parenting or laws vary culture to culture
- individualistic culture = less obedient = more likely to look out for themselves
- collectivist culture = more obedient = moire likely to look out for others

Question 24

Evaluate the historical validity

Answer 24

• it was carried out in 1963
• society has changed since then. Including the ways we social children or laws = different obedience levels
• perhaps obedience levels might be even lower if replicated today due to encouraged free thinking

Question 25

When evaluating this research what do you talk about for evaluating the ethical issues

Answer 25

- risk of stress anxiety, humiliation and pain - valid consent - deception - right to withdrawal - privacy

Question 26

Evaluate the ethical issue of risk of stress anxiety, humiliation and pain

Answer 26

- participants showed signs of extreme tension such as sweating and trembling and 3 of them experienced so much stress that they had uncontrollable seizures - the participants may leave the study believing they’re capable of harming others, changing the way they view themselves causing stress and anxiety COUNTER - he didn’t anticipate that individuals would make it that far on the voltage scale (predicted only 0-3% would) and therefore there wouldn’t have been a risk

Question 27

Evaluate the ethical issue of valid consent

Answer 27

- participants couldn’t give their valid consent because they were not told the true aim of the research - they may not have chosen to take part in the study if they were aware of what it was really about, especially if they were aware it may cause stress - Milgram told them in an advert it was a study of memory then when they got to the lab the ‘experimenter’ told them that it was a study of learning and punishment but it was really a study about obedience to authority COUNTER - if they were aware of the true aims, you wouldn’t observe true obedience - 84% said they were glad to have participated - and there was a debrief FURTHER COUNTER - Perry (2012) argued that some participants were waiting up to a year before they were debriefed despite the fact they had left the lab believing that they killed someone

Question 28

Evaluate the ethical issue of deception

Answer 28

- By deceiving the participants you risk damaging the reputation of Psychology and risk reducing the number of participants who volunteer for future research studies - Amongst other things, they were lied to about the aim of the study (twice). They were told the ‘learner’ was receiving real electric shocks, when they weren’t - they were told the answers to the learning task were being given by the ‘learner’ but they were predetermined right and wrong answers - they were led to believe the ‘learner’ was another participant and the ‘experimenter’ was the experimenter but they were both confederates - the drawing lots to see who would have what roles was rigged COUNTER - if they hadn’t used deception = more demand characteristics - participants might’ve not taken part

Question 29

Evaluate the ethical issue of right to withdraw

Answer 29

- the prods made participants feel like they couldn’t withdraw - when participants display an unwillingness to continue they are told “you have no other choice, you must go on” COUNTER - They were told the money was theirs as soon as the experiment started - 35% were defiant (showing it was possible to withdraw before the end)

Question 30

Evaluate the ethical issue of privacy

Answer 30

- milgram invaded privacy by observing participants though a one-way mirror without them knowing COUNTER - they’re in a lab, they are expecting their behaviour to be observed

Question 31

Evaluate the strength of the sampling method

Answer 31

P: it gives access to a large number of potential participants from a variety of backgrounds E: By placing the advert in the newspaper and positing it directly through people’s doors it means it was seen by a large number of people from the New Haven area and by people from a variety of different background, such as different occupations and educational levels, like teachers, labourers and clerks E: This means that the sample is likely to be more representative of the target population and therefore has a higher population validity

Question 32

Evaluate the weakness of the sampling technique

Answer 32

P: Tend to get a certain type of person that responds to the ad, resulting in volunteer bias. They tend to be more helpful or have extra time on their hands E: They therefore might be more obedient and feel more obliged to go on with the study due to how helpful they are. They might also feel obliged due to the money E: Therefore this decreases validity of the study because they’re not representative of the population’s obedience

Question 33

Evaluate the strength of the location of research (lab)

Answer 33

P: One strength is that Milgram created a highly controlled and had access to equipment by being in a lab E: One example is that he was able to control and rig the drawing of paper slips as well as as have access to the shock machine that had 30 switches on (difficult in a field) E: This increases validity due to more access to equipment

Question 34

Evaluate the weakness of the location of research (lab)

Answer 34

P: One weakness is that because it’s a lab = constantly reminded that you’re being observed = demand characteristics E: They figure out shocks aren’t real E: means that it reduces validity due to the changed behaviour and therefore decreased generalisability

Question 35

Evaluate the strength of collecting both qualitative and quantitative data

Answer 35

P: he collected both, giving us the benefits of both E: e,g. Collected quantitative data through the No. of drop out (35% were deviant). And he collected qualitative data through his observation of behaviours and comments from the participants whilst giving the shocks which showed us that they were suffering from extreme tensions E: this is a strength as we not only see how obedient they were but also how they felt about being obedient, finding that they were actually in conflict and distressed. It allows both ease of analysis of the numbers and rich additional detail from the descriptions adding to our understanding of the behaviours shown

Question 36

Evaluate the strength of the study being reliable

Answer 36

P: Milgram maintained consistency between participants through standardised procedures/instructions + controlled environment E: he recorded behaviour on a magnetic tape recorder, took photographs of behaviour, kept notes on any behaviours, used accurate timings with devices (objective) and additional observers were used E: this is a strength because by using a highly standardised procedure = very replicable + reliable Counter: might have low historical validity because it was in 1963 Counter: can’t replicate today due to ethical reasons

Question 37

‘Discuss how a psychologist could improve the way Milgram’s (1963) research ‘behavioural study of Obedience’ was’ - what are the 3 issues identifiable + how you improve it

Answer 37

1) unrepresentative sample/sampling —> use a random sampling 2) unrealistic task of obedience —> use a task related to everyday obedience 3) unethical —> minimise the harm they experience

Question 38

Describe the improvement of using a random sampling method

Answer 38

- Milgram would do this by getting a New Haven phone book directory - he then assigns each person a number and then creates his sample of 40 using a random number generator - the impact of this is that it will reduce the bias in the sample because all members of the target population have an equal chance of selection. Therefore it is more representable

Question 39

Describe the improvement of using a task related to everyday obedience

Answer 39

- milgram should take inspiration from Hoffling et al (1966) where he used an unknown doctor to call up nurses to administer a lethal dosage of a frug, that goes against protocol for nurses. This was done in a field as well - this makes the findings more generalisable due to an increased ecological validity, and potentially reduces demand characteristics

Question 40

Describe the improvement of minimising the harm they experience

Answer 40

- screen beforehand to see if all participants are mentally stable / medically well - have a medical professional observing to check and withdraw the participants if they seem too stressed/anxious - warn them beforehand that the task may be distressing or even tell them that they’ll be shocking others - the impact of doing this is that it keeps Milgram’s reputation intact and reduces psychological harm, making the research more ethical