Milgram And Bocchiaro SOCIAL AS Flashcards
MILGRAM
Background to study
Millions of innocent people were killed by Nazi’s. Milgram believed this was due to the Nazi’s obeying a figure of authority. He wanted to test this theory and see how far people would go if the orders resulted in harm to someone else.
BOCCHIARO
Background to study
From Milgram’s, we learnt that people are highly obedient to authority figures. Bocchiaro wanted to study the extent to which people would disobey authority and even whistle-blow.
MILGRAM
Aim
To investigate how obedient people would be to orders from a figure of authority, which would result in pain and harm to another human being.
BOCCHIARO
Aim
To investigate the accuracy of peoples estimates on obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing.
MILGRAM
Method
Laboratory experiment, however, it didn’t have an independent variable so it was also a structured observation.
BOCCHIARO
Method
Laboratory experiment, however, it didn’t have an independent variable so it was also an overt observation.
MILGRAM
Design
Independent measures.
BOCCHIARO
Design
Independent measures.
MILGRAM
Sample
Volunteer sample by a news paper ad on “memory and learning”.
40 males between 20 and 50.
BOCCHIARO
Sample
3 samples:
138 students - “what would the average student do?”.
138 DIFFERENT students - “what would you do?”
149 undergraduates (96 women, 53 men) - took part for either 7 euros or course credit.
MILGRAM
Materials
A shock generator with 30 switches marked with 15 volt intervals.
BOCCHIARO
Materials
A computer to compose their statement.
A mailbox.
An ethics committee form.
MILGRAM
Procedure
Each participant arrived at Yale University and was introduced to a man working for Milgram (who the participant believed to be another participant).
The man working for Milgram always got given the role of the “the learner” and the actual participant got given the role of “the teacher”.
Both were given a 45V shock to demonstrate (increase legitimacy) and were told that the shocks weren’t dangerous.
The teacher read out pairs of words that tested the learner, for each mistake made by the learner, the teacher gave a shock which increased by 15V for each mistake. The shocks weren’t real but there was no way for the participant to know.
When the participant reached 300V, the learner started banging on the wall and then fell silent. The participant was told that silence was considered a wrong answer.
Participants were given a series of verbal prompts if they protested, requesting for them to continue.
BOCCHIARO
Procedure
8 pilot studies were conducted using 92 participants to ensure it was credible and ethical.
Each participant arrived and was told the study was based on sensory deprivation and they were then told the cover story.
Each participant was requested to write down names of people to take part in the sensory deprivation study and had to write a statement to convince them to take part.
They had to use at least 2 verbs from the list of: exciting, incredible, superb and great.
If the participant thought the study was unethical, they could fill out an ethics committee form and mail it.
They were left for 7 minutes, and then the researcher returned and gave each participant the HEXACO-PI-R test and the Decomposed games measure of social values.
Participants then filled out another consent from in order for their results to be used.
MILGRAM
Results
Quantitative: 100% of participants reached 300V and 65% reached the full 450V.
Qualitative: participants showed tension by sweating, laughing nervously and stuttering.
BOCCHIARO
Results
Qualitative data (actual results) : 76.5% obeyed, 14.1% disobeyed and 9.4 whistle-blew.
MILGRAM
Conclusions
People are very obedient to destructive orders when it is given by a figure of authority.
People also find the experience of obeying destructive orders very stressful.
BOCCHIARO
Conclusions
People are very obedient and whistle-blowing is uncommon.
MILGRAM
Ethical Considerations
Participants were deceived.
Participants gave informed consent however they didn’t give it for the true aim of the study.
Participants weren’t protected from harm.
They had the right to withdraw, but were verbally prompt to continue.
BOCCHIARO
Ethical Considerations
Participants were deceived but Bocchiaro conducted 8 pilot studies and told the participants as soon as possible.
They gave informed consent after the procedure.
They were protected from harm as they weren’t requested to physically harm someone themselves.
MILGRAM
Validity
Took place in an artificial environment which may have intimidated some participants.
Unlikely that people will need to operate electric shock generators.
Has a low ecological validity.
BOCCHIARO
Validity
Took place in an artificial environment.
Has a low ecological validity.
MILGRAM
Reliability
As it is a laboratory experiment, it is highly replicable.
BOCCHIARO
Reliability
As it is a laboratory experiment, it is highly replicable.
MILGRAM
How it relates to the key theme
It relates as participants were very obedient to those in authority and it therefore gives more of an understanding to how people respond in these situations.
BOCCHIARO
How it relates to the key theme
It related as it reinforces Milgram’s study and allows us to see that the same results are produced years later.
MILGRAM
How it relates to the Social Area
It relates to the social area as it shows us that people’s behaviour can be influenced by people around them. In this case, they were influenced by the prompts and experimenter.
BOCCHIARO
How it relates to the Social Area
It relates to the social area as it confirms that people around us have an influence on our behaviour.
Similarities between Milgram and Bocchiaro
Took place in universities.
Gave some kind of reward for taking part.
Same conclusions.
Both have links to the Individual Differences area.
Differences between Milgram and Bocchiaro
Milgram used all male sample of ages 20-50, Bocchiaro used mixed-sex students.
Bocchiaro’s is considered much more ethical due to the 8 pilot tests.
MILGRAM
Debates
Individual/situational
Free will/determinism
Usefulness of research
BOCCHIARO
Debates
Individual/situational
Free will/determinism
Usefulness of research
