Milgram(1963) & Var. 7, 10, 13(/A)

Question 1

Describe aim.

Answer 1

Test obedience to a legitimate source of authority when including destructive behaviours.

Question 2

Describe sample of OG study.

Answer 2

40 caucasian men (20-50yo). Recruited through volunteer sampling (Newspaper advert in New Haven for £4.50). Varied from unskilled to professionals.

Question 3

Describe procedure of OG study.

Answer 3

Volunteer and confederate draw rigged lots and volunteer becomes ‘teacher’.
Teacher is instructed to incrementally (15V) shock the confederate whenever they answer wrong (15-450V) until eventual protest, falling to silence at >315V.

Question 4

Describe procedure when volunteer protests.

Answer 4

Experimenter incrementally prods from, “Please continue,” to “You have no other choice but to continue.”

Question 5

Describe results of OG study.

(Statistics and observations)

Answer 5

65% administered full 450V shock.
All participants went to 300V.
3/40 had full-blown, uncontrollable seizures.
Observed trembling, shaking, anxious behaviour and 35% exhibited nervous laughter.

Question 6

Conclusion of OG study.

Answer 6

Average American tend to obey legitimate authority figures even when harming others.

Question 7

Describe Variation #7

(Difference in procedure/results & Conc.)

Answer 7

‘Absent Authority’ – Experimenter gave instructions via telephone.
- 9/40 (22.5%) full obedience
- Participants lied abt raising shock levels because of passive resistance
Conc – Less physical immediacy -> important situational factor that increases obedience, decreasing dissent.

Question 8

Describe Variation #10

(Difference in procedure/results & Conc.)

Answer 8

‘Institutional Context’ – Location changed from Yale to run-down office block run by ‘private firm’
- 47.5% full obedience
Conc – dubious legitimacy decreases obedience but ‘scientific’ research still encourages relatively high obedience

Question 9

Describe Variation #13

(Difference in procedure/results & Conc.)

Answer 9

‘Ordinary Authority Figure’ – Experimenter leaves the room (w/o telling teacher to raise shock), second confederate ‘writing down times’ suggests incrementing for each mistake.
- 2/20 (20%) fully obeyed
Conc – Status important but other situational features (shock generator, instructions) still create obedience

Question 10

Describe Variation #13A

Describe Variation #13A (Difference in procedure/results & Conc.)

Answer 10

If participant from #13 protested, moved onto #13A
- 16/20 ‘rebel’ participants
- Second confederate suggest swapping place
- All protested but 11/16 (68.75%) allowed confederate to fully obey
-** 5/16** (31.25%) tried to unplug shock generator/restrain confederate

Question 11

Results for baseline and variation 7,10 and 13(/A).

(% full obedience, observations)

Answer 11

Baseline - 65%, 14 (35%) nervous laughter, 3 seizures
Var. 7 - 22.5%, some lied abt changing shock level
Var. 10 -47.5%, expression of doubt
Var. 13/A - 20%/68.75%, 5 in 13A physically tried to stop confederate

Question 12

Generasibility, reliabiility, application, validity, ethics

Question 13

Is Milgram’s OG study generalisible?

Answer 13

Nuh uh