Milgram - obedience to authority

Question 1

Obedience

Answer 1

A type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person, usually a figure of authority

Question 2

Milgram 1963 conclusions

Answer 2

Ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way
It’s not necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes, but ordinary people obeying orders.
Crimes against humanity may be the outcome of situational rather than dispositional factors.
An individual’s capacity for making independent decisions is suspended under certain situational constraints - namely, being given an order by an authority figure

Question 3

Internal validity

Answer 3

The degree to which the observed effect occurred due to the manipulated independent variable(there wasn’t a memory test as stated).

Question 4

Did the participants believe Milgram’s experiment was real?

Answer 4

Realism refuted by psychologists. Experimenter was cool and distant when learner cries out in pain. Therefore, participants suppose the victim can’t really be suffering any real harm , and this was why so many administered all the shocks

Question 5

Negative evaluations

Answer 5

Evaluation: low internal validity
Extra evaluation: Ethical issues
Evaluation extra: Social identity theory

Question 6

Positive evaluations

Answer 6

Supporting replication(La zone xtreme)
Good external validity
Supporting replication(Bickman)

Question 7

Evaluation: low internal validity for Milgram’s experiment

Answer 7

One and Holland(1968) argued participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up, therefore it lacked internal validity.
Perry(2013) listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks.
However, Sheridan and King(1972) support the realism of Milgram’s study with their own findings. They asked participants to give electric shocks to a puppy. The shocks were real, with participants able to see and hear the puppy:
Male = 54% delivered maximum
Female = 100% delivered maximum

Question 8

Supporting replication(evaluation)

Answer 8

There doesn’t appear to be any historical bias with Milgram’s studies…
Supporting replication(The Game of Death,2010) ‘La zone xtreme’:
80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an unconscious man

Question 9

Good external validity(positive evaluation)- can generalise findings to other situations, people, settings and measures

Answer 9

Central feature: relationship between authority figure and participant
e.g.
Hofling et al(1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high.
21 out of 22 obeyed

Question 10

Extra evaluation: Social identity theory

Answer 10

Key to obedience lies in group identification
Participants identified with the experimenter and identified with the science of the study
If the obedience level fell this was due to participants identifying less with the science and more with the learner
Haslam and Reicher(2010): the first three prods didn’t demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science

Question 11

Extra evaluation: Ethical issues

Answer 11

Buamrind(1964) was very critical about the way Milgram deceived his participants
They believed they were randomly allocated the roles of teacher or learner
They believed the electric shocks were real
This level of betrayal of trust could damage the reputation of other psychologists

Question 12

Results

Answer 12

65% of participants administered 450V and none stopped before administering 300V
Most of the participants showed obvious signs of stress like sweating, groaning and trembling

Question 13

Milgram objective

Answer 13

This condition, and laboratory experiments, tested whether people would obey orders to shock someone in a separate room

Question 14

Milgram procedures

Answer 14

There were 40 male participants, who responded to a newspaper advert seeking volunteers for a study on ‘learning and memory,’ and received payment for attending, which didn’t depend on them proceeding with the experimenter.
The experimenter wore a grey technician’s coat. Each participant was introduced to the confederate(acting like a participant but who was part of the experimental set-up). They drew lots to see who would act as ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’, but this was fixed so the participant was always the teacher.
The participant witnesses the confederate being strapped into a chair and connected up to a shock generator in the next room, which the participants thought it was real despite it not actually giving electric shocks. The switches ranged from 15 volts(slight shock) to 450 volts(labelled XXX). The participants taught the learner word-pairs over an intercom. When the learner answered incorrectly, the participant had to administer an increasing level of shock.
After the 300V shock, the learner pounded on the wall and made no further response. If participants hesitated during the process, the experimenter told them to continue.

Question 15

Situational variables - Zilgram

Answer 15

Proximity
Location
Uniform
These show situational factors heavily impact the levels of obedience

Question 16

How proximity impacts obedience

Answer 16

Milgram changed the variables in a variety of ways to study the effects of proximity:
When the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms(original study), there was 65% milobedience of teachers to the doctor.
When the teacher and learner were in the same room(variation), there was 40% obedience of teachers to the doctor.
One condition required the teacher to force the learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate when he refused to answer a question(touch proximity) - in this condition, obedience rate dropped to 30%.
In another condition(remote proximity), the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone, meaning the obedience rate dropped to 20.5%.

Question 17

How location impacts obedience

Answer 17

Original study - prestigious university setting in Yale(65% obedience)
Variation - Changed location to a run-down office down town(47.5% obedience)

Question 18

How uniform impacts obedience

Answer 18

Original study - Experimenter wore a lab coat(65% obedience)
Variation - Role of experimenter carried out by ordinary member of public(confederate):20% obedience

Question 19

Bickman research support for Milgram

Answer 19

Bickman(1974) tested the ecological validity of Milgram’s work by conducting an experiment in a more realistic setting.
In this study, three male researchers gave direct requests to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in Brooklyn, New York.
The researchers were dressed in one of three ways:
1. Guard uniform
2. Milkman’s uniform
3. Civilian clothing(sports jacket and tie)

Question 20

Bickman conclusion

Answer 20

Bickman observed 80% of participants obeyed the researcher dressed to look like a police officer, whereas 40% of those approached by the researcher wearing civilian clothing obeyed the request.