Milgram's original study Flashcards
Aim - P1, A01
The aim of Milgram’s study of obedience was to investigate if naïve participants would obey orders from an authority figure that went against their values, specifically to see if they would deliver electric shocks to a confederate powerful enough to kill someone.
Sample - P1, A01
He used a sample of 40 American males aged between 20 and 50. The sample was obtained from a newspaper advertisement and direct mailing. The participants believed they were taking part in a study of memory and learning. Each participant was paid $4.50 no matter what.
Method - P2, A01
a controlled observation was carried out at Yale university
sessions were filmed and notes were taken by observers through an observation mirror
the experimenter introduced himself as Jack Williams who wore a grey lab coat and appeared to be stern
Mr Wallace was introduced as the other participant but was actually a confederate
Procedure - P2, A01
there was one participant and one confederate (who was thought to be another participant) per trial
they were asked to draw a slip of paper to see who gets the teacher and the learner but it was fixed so Mr Wallace was always the learner
the participants could see Mr Wallace strapped to an ‘electric chair’ in another room
the shock generator was fake with 30 switches with 15V increments from 15Vto 450V
participants were given a sample 45V shock
the participants were asked to test the learner on a series of word pars and if they answered wrong, the pps would shock the learner
for every wrong answer the pps moved the shock level up one switch
the participants were prodded by the experimenter who gave standardised verbal prods e.g., please continue, please go on, when they refused to continue with the study
The experiment would end if 450V was reached or the participant walked out
Following the study, the participants were debriefed and reunited with Mr Wallace showing he had not been harmed
Strength of procedure - standardised P2, A03
One strength of Milgram’s procedures was that it was standardised
Every participant therefore had the exact same experience of the procedure
for example, the experimenters responses were supposedly tightly scripted, so the prods were delivered in the same order and tone of voice for each participant
Therefore, this means that the study is replicable and has been successfully replicated (e.g., Burger 2009)
COUNTER ARGUMENT TO Strength of procedure - standardised P2, A03
However, Perry argued that there were occasions when the experimenter deviated from the script – in one instance he allegedly gave as many as 20 prods before he let the participants leave.
This departure from the procedure suggests that Milgram’s study may not have been as standardised as he claims meaning it will be harder to specifically replicate in the future.
Findings - P3, A01
65% of the pps were classified as fully obedient as they went up to the full 450V shock level
100% of participants continued to 300V, then 12.5% disobeyed at this point
participants were observed to tremble, sweat and bite their lips
4 participant had uncontrollable seizures
Conclusions - P3, A01
the findings showed that ordinary Americans are surprisingly obedient to legitimate authority
Milgram suggested several factors may explain obedience such as the perceived competence and reputation of the researcher
Weakness of Milgram - lacks ecological validity P3, A03
One weakness of Milgram’s study is that the shocks which the teacher administered may not have seemed real.
Orne and Holland claimed that participants guessed the shocks were fake but went along with the procedure anyway – it was strange that the experimenter did not give shocks himself and seemed unconcerned about the learner.
Other psychologists support this as unseen film footage can be seen to show participants were suspicious about the authenticity of the shock machine.
Therefore, this means that the internal validity of the findings of the study can be questioned meaning that Americans are not as obedient as they may have seemed because Milgram was not testing what he intended to test.
Application of Milgram’s findings - P4, A03
One strength of Milgram’s findings is that they can be applied to everyday life, such as pilot training.
Tarnow in 2000 describes how, on a plane, first officers often fail to monitor and challenge errors made by the captain due to the captains legitimate authority.
There is a parallel between this behaviour and obedient behaviour in Milgram’s study.
Tarnow believes that training first officers in how to challenge the authority of the pilot could prevent up to 20% of plane crashes.
Therefore, this means that the findings of Milgram’s study have led to an improvement in training in cockpit behaviour and will potentially save lives.
