Milgram - behavioural study of obedience Flashcards
what is obedience?
- a form of social influence:
a person changes their behaviour bc of the direct instructions of another person - typically a direct order from a figure with perceived authority
context?
- during the 2nd world war (1939) millions of innocent ppl were killed on command, e.g. those killed in German conc camps
- the historians at the time attributed the behavior of the Nazi soldiers as being due to a German character defect
- Milgram was interested in this DESTRUCTIVE OBEDIENCE where orders are obeyed even tho the indiv understands the - consequences
Aim?
to investigate whether destructive obedience to authority is unique to Germans or whether anyone could display brutality simply by following orders.
hypothesis?
- M did not state any explicit hypotheses in his research
- he did state in his original article that “the individual who is commanded by a legitimate authority figure ordinarly obeys”
- however, prior to the research he did ask 14 Yale psy seniors to predict the level of obedience. All predicted that only an insig minority would administer the max. elevel of shock (estimates 0-3%)
Aim (Germans)?
- the “Germans are different” hypothesis
- Milgram’s research was to test the historian’s hypothesis
- his original experiment in USA was a ‘pilot’ study but the results made conducting the exp in Ger unec
methodology?
- difficult study to categorise
- often referred to as a laboratory exp
- hwr, not a tru exp as no IV and DV
- M initially intended to compare Americans w Germans - if he had nationality would have acted as the IV, and it would have been classed as an exp
- it is a controlled observation in a lab setting
DV is?
- no IV
- DV: max Voltage each ppt went to
extraneous variables: LOR?
- LOR: Yale uni- prestigious - may ⬆ obedience (47.5% went to 450V when replicated in a run down office block)
extraneous variables: researcher bias?
M’s own expectations may have influenced the research. BUT scripted verbal prods and non-participant observation so this bias may be minimal
EV: social desirability?
volunteer bias (eager to please), may have occurred in debrief interviews –ppts may have lied about how they felt/reasons for their obedience to present themselves in a positive light etc. 74% said they ‘had learnt something of importance’ in a follow up questionnaire.
methodologies- non ppt observation def?
An observation where the researcher chooses not to play any part in what is being observed
method - non ppt ob- link to M?
m was not part of the group being observed
+s of non ppt obs?
+ more likely to be objective so less chance of researcher bias as Milgram not directly interacting with ppts and so findings less likely to be distorted by his expectations so higher internal validity.
-s of non ppt obs?
- Could miss important insights into obedience behaviours, thoughts and feelings as not part of the group. However he did use structured interviews to gain more information on ppts experiences, thoughts and feelings.
structured interviews def?
a type of interview where the questions are decided in advance and asked in the same order for each interviewee
structured interviews link to M?
Milgram conducted structured interviews with each ppt after the study to find out abt their exps in the research
+s of structured interviews? (3)
+ Easy to compare ppts responses as all ppts get same questions e.g. “how painful to the learner were the last few shocks that administered to them rate on scale 1-14” unlike in a semi-structured interview where ppts may get different questions and so give very different responses making it difficult to compare.
+ Less chance of researcher/interviewer bias as all ppts get same questions so Milgram is unlikely to be able to influence their answers therefore increasing the validity of the findings.
+ easy to rep, quick to conduct
-s of structured interviews? (3)
- May be prone to researcher bias and interpretations can be subjective reducing the internal validity of the study.
- Ppts may have felt ashamed of how they acted and give socially desirable justifications for their behaviour (eg claiming they had suspected the shocks weren’t real)
- The researcher cannot deviate from the pre-set questions meaning they cannot follow up on new lines of enquiry. This may mean they do not get as fuller understanding of the obedience shown compared to an semi-structured interview where they can deviate from set questions.
LOR- identify?
Lab in Yale uni
LOR: define 4 features of a lab location?
- Milgram has control over the environment and extraneous variables.
- Use of standardised procedures
- Use of specialist equipment e.g. shock generator
LOR :link to M - lab
M has control over EVs and the envir
LOR : + of lab research? (2)
+ Use of lab = control over extraneous variables so greater internal validity – can be sure study is genuine/legitimate measure of obedience.
+ Use of standardised procedures to enable replication – Milgram wanted to replicate his procedures in the future varying specific factors e.g. the location, how close the learner was to the teacher so important he was able to have a controlled procedure that could be replicated.
LOR : - of lab research?
- Lacks ecological validity – artificial controlled lab environment – results may not generalise to real life settings/situations of obedience as they may simply be an effect of controlled setting so lack external validity. (⭐EXT – Mandel said that Milgram did not come close to replicating the conditions that Nazi soldiers faced during WW2
- Greater chance of demand characteristics – ppts working out aims of study (obedience) and changing their behaviour to help (being more obedient) or hinder (being defiant) Milgram lowering the internal validity.
ppts: describE M’s sample?
- volunteers recruited for research investigating “learning and memory
- Advert in New Haven newspaper – study on memory & learning at Yale
- From those who responded he selected 40 males between ages of 20-50 from New Haven and surrounding areas.
- Wide range of occupations from postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen.
- Wide range of educational background – not finished elementary school to someone with a doctorate.
- Paid $4.50 for participation. Paid on arrival.
ppts: Target population ?
everyone “A behavioural study of obedience” (some may say specifically male soldiers behaviour) but in reality wanted to understand the social processes involved in obedience in everyone.
ppts: sampling frame?
New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
ppts: sampling tech?
self-selected.
ppts: + of self selected? (2)
☺ Ease for researcher – Milgram simply had to place advert and wait for ppts to come forward to volunteer unlike systematic where need to contact every nth person on list e.g. telephone book for New Haven.
☺ Can give access to a wider variety of ppts e.g. all people who live in New Haven and nearby areas who read New Haven Newspaper - hence Milgram access variety of ages, occupations and educational level. Increase external validity compared to opportunity where he may have used all students at the university of Yale and so would yield an unrepresentative sample.
ppts: - of self selected?
☹ Volunteer bias – the people who do come forward likely to be similar e.g. motivated, time on hands, extroverts therefore not fully unrepresentative – findings may not be generalisable to everyone lowering external validity
explain how M COULD HAVE used other sampling techniques to select his sample?
- opportunity = using the ppl at Yale uni
- Random = taking names from a phone book and using a generator
- systematic= taking a phone book and selecting every nth person
- stratified = selecting ppts from each sub group in proportion they appear in the TP using a random tech
- quota = ^ but non random tech
quan/qual/primary/sec: e.gs of quan data in M’s research?
maximum level of shock e.g. voltage ppts were willing to administer before refusing to go on.
- All 40 ppts went to 300 volts
- 5 (12.5%) ppts refused to continue past 300v
- A/A* - detail how many ppts stopped at each
stage up to 450v
- 26 (65%) ppts obeyed all the way to 450v (14
“defied the experimenter”)
- 3 had uncontrollable seizures
- 14 showed signs of nervous laughter
- In the debrief when asked to rate the intensity of
the pain caused by the last few shocks on
a 14 point scale (“Not at all painful to
“Extremely painful”) the mean score was 13.42
quan/qual/primary/sec: + of quan data?
+ easy to make comparisons to other sets of data
+ easily replicated and assessed for reliability
quan/qual/primary/sec: -s of quan data?
- may lack validity as numbers over simplify reality
- some aspects of human thought and behaviour may be diff to operationalise to be measured numerically
quan/qual/primary/sec: e.gs of qual data in M’s research?
- Observers made notes on ppts behaviour during the study
- Ppts were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their nails into their flesh.
- Ppts who defied the experimenter at 300v responses “He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue but I can’t do that to a man”
- Ppts responses in the post experiment interview e.g. explaining they are not sadistic and their laughter did not mean they enjoyed it.
quan/qual/primary/sec: + of qual?
+ high V as detailed info
+ diff to replicate and assess for validity
quan/qual/primary/sec: why is M’s data an example of primary data?
collected all of the data himself
quan/qual/primary/sec: + of primary data?
+ can ensure data fits aims of study
+ researcher designs methods inc controlling EVs, can ensure IV
