Milgram: Obedience Study

Question 1

Aims

Answer 1

Wanted to test ‘German’s are different’ hypothesis

They have an ‘authoritarian personality’ and are more likely to be prejudiced towards minorities

Question 2

Methodology

Answer 2

-Controlled observation in a lab setting

-Not true experiment as didn’t actually compare Germans and Americans

Question 3

Participants

Answer 3

-Males aged 20-40

-Range of education level (not finish school-doctorate)

-Self Select sampling from New Haven newspaper

-Given $4.00 incentive regardless of whether finished study

Question 4

Procedure 1

Answer 4

-Told receive $4.00 incentive regardless

-Ps met two confederates (31 y/o experimenter in lab coat and ‘Mr Wallace’

-Drew rigged paper to see who is teacher/ learner (Mr Wallace always learner)

-Ps witness Mr Wallace strapped into electric chair + electrodes placed on him

-Ps placed into adjoining room with shock generator (30 = slight sock, 450 = XXX)

-Ps given 45V sample shock

Question 5

Procedure 2

Answer 5

-Learning task starts, Ps told to give shock increasing in V when Mr Wallace gets answer wrong

-Experimenters’ 4 verbal prods if Ps hesitate giving shocks:
“Please Continue”
“The experiment requires you to continue”
“It is essential that you continue”
“You must continue”

-Milgram wanted to see if teacher would continue shocks if learner protested

-Ps given full dehoax after

Question 6

Quant Findings

Answer 6

-Group of psychology majors estimated 0-3% would administer 450V

-All Ps gave 300V minimum

-65% gave full 450V

-Ps who obeyed full shocks were ‘obedient’ and those who refused were ‘defiant’

Question 7

Qual Findings

Answer 7

-Ps showed signs of extreme tension

“Full blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3”

-Particpants were sweating, trembling, stuttering, groaning

Defiants = Angry + agitated

Obedients = Sighed relief, shook head in regret

Question 8

Conclusions

Answer 8

-In certain situations people would kill a stranger

-The situation caused high obedience e.g. experimenter in lab coat

-Ordinary people are shocking obedient to destructive orders

Question 9

Factors that contribute to obedience (Conclusions)

Answer 9

-Location (Prestigious uni)

-Perception of authority (More relaxed replication study saw less obedience)

-Obligation to participate due to volunteering

Question 10

Evaluation of Methodology

Answer 10

-Lacks internal validity as research wrongly assumes Ps believed they were hurting people

-Yale is respected uni so wouldn’t want death on hands (Ps guess it’s not real) + in follow up interview Ps said were suspicious as experimenter was calm

-However, Milgram reported up to 65% thought was real

-Therefore, Ps easily guess aim and showed demand characteristics, results not valid

-Also lacks eco validity as done in highly controlled lab

Question 11

Evaluation of Sample

Answer 11

-Lacks population validity

-P’s all men from self-select sample, likely to have shared characteristics e.g. outgoing

-However, replications found results for women same and it only reflects time of 60s as women less involved in science

-Despite lacking pop validity, males still fairly rep as varied education, age, jobs etc…
and no gender diff was found

Question 12

Ethical Issues

Answer 12

-No protection from harm as 3 teachers had seizures due to psychological harm

-Seizures also caused extreme embarrassment for Ps

-However, was necessary to have think hurt someone or would show demand characteristics = no int validity

-Use of deception as Ps told doing memory study

-However, deception necessary as may have presented social desirability if knew aims

-However deception is still issue as thought actually hurting someone…