Milgram’s Research Flashcards
1
Q
What is obedience?
A
- Result of social influence where somebody acts in a response to a direct order from an authority figure.
2
Q
Milgram’s Aim
A
- To find out whether ordinary Americans obey an unjust order from a person in authority to inflict pain on another person.
- To discover what factors cause people to obey.
3
Q
Milgram’s procedure
A
- 40 male volunteers, paid $4.50.
- Deceived into thinking they were giving electric shocks.
- Participants told the study concerned the role of punishment in learning.
- Genuine participant always had the teacher’s role and confederate played the part of the learner whose task was to memorise pairs of words.
- When tested the learner would indicate his choice using a system of lights.
- Teachers role was to administer a shock every time the learner made a mistake.
- Teacher sat in front of the shock generator that had 30 levers which indicated the level of shock to be given.
- Participant watched the stooge being strapped into a chair in an adjoining room with electrodes attached to their arms.
- Every time a mistake was made by learner they would be given a shock.
-Shocks started at 15 volts and rose in 15 volt increments to 450 volts. - If teacher hesitated administering the shocks, the researcher encouraged him to continue.
- Only actual shock given was a 45v given to teacher to try convince him that shock were real. No real shocks given to learner.
- Experiment continued until teacher refused to continue or until 450 volts were reached 4 times.
4
Q
Milgram’s Findings
A
- All participants went to at least 300 volts on the shock generator.
- 65% of participant went to the end of the shock generator.
- Most participants found the procedure very stressful and wanted to stop, but it’s some showing signs of extreme anxiety.
- Although the disagreed verbally they continued to obey the researcher who prodded them to continue to give shocks.
- 84% were glad to have taken part.
- 2% we’re sorry to have taken part.
- 74% said they had learned something of personal importance.
5
Q
Milgram’s conclusion
A
- When people occupy a subordinate position on a dominance hierarchy they will become liable to lose feelings of empathy and are inclined towards blind obedience.
6
Q
Evaluation of Milgram’s study - Low ecological validity
A
- Lab based study.
- Claimed that because Milgram’s studies were lab experiments the behaviour was artificial and this increased the level of obedience.
- Baumrid suggested that it was not possible to generate these findings to real life because the study was carried out at Yale University.
- Weakness - Findings may only be applicable to lab research and not everyday life therefore lacking ecological validity.
7
Q
Evaluation of Milgram’s study - Supporting research
A
- Realistic field experiments have supported his findings.
- Hofling et al found that 95% of nurses would give a higher dose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient if ordered to do so by what they believed to be an authority figure even though they knew the dose was wrong.
- Strength - suggests that the processes of obedience can be generalised to other situations and how obedience operates in real life.
8
Q
Evaluation of Milgram’s Study - Ethical Issues
A
- Deception and lack of informed consent - Milgram deceived his participants by telling them they were involved in a study of the effect of punishment in learning which denies the participants the right to informed consent. Argues that the experiment would have been meaningless without some degree of deception.
- Right to withdraw - Right to withdraw was not clear. Milgram claimed that the participants knew they were free to leave at any time as demonstrated when some did leave.
- Protection from Psychological harm - Baumrid criticised the research saying that participants suffered considerable distress which was not justified given the aims of the research.
- Weakness - undermine credibility.
9
Q
Evaluation of Milgram’s research - Ethical considerations
A
- Milgram debriefed his participants to ensure that psychological heart was minimised and issues can be resolved.
- In a follow up study 84% of the participants indicated that they were glad to have taken part. 74% felt they had learned something extremely valuable about themselves.
- Strength - ensures psychological harm was minimised.
10
Q
Obedience - Situational Variables - Proximity
A
- In original study the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms so the teacher could hear the learner but not see them:
- In variation the teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience fell from 65% to 40%.
- In another variation where the teacher forced the learners hand on a shock plate, obedience fell to 30%.
- In another variation, experimenter left the room and gave instructions to teacher via phone. Obedience fell to 20.5%.
11
Q
Obedience - Situational Variables - Location
A
- In this variation, Milgram changed the location of the study. He used a run down building rather than the prestigious Yale university. Obedience fell to 47.5%.
12
Q
Obedience - Situational Variables - Uniform
A
- Milgram’s experimenter wore a lab coat which have him a high status.
- When the experimenter dressed in everyday clothes obedience was very low.
13
Q
Evaluation of Situational Variables for obedience - research support
A
- Evidence to support the impact that wearing uniform has on obedience.
- Bickman - investigated obedience on the streets of New York. Found when an experimenter dressed in a guards uniform gave an order to pedestrians there was 89% obedience compared to 33% when the experimenter was dressed more normal. A milkman’s uniform did not have the same effect with 57% obedience.
- Strength - supports Milgrams conclusion of a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factor that is likely to produce obedience.
14
Q
Evaluation of situational variables for obedience - control of variables
A
- High control over variables
- Systematically altered one variable at a time to see the effect on level of obedience. All other procedures and variables kept the same as the study was replicated with eventually more than 1,000 participants total.
- Strength - high internal validity. Can be confident that the IV was the cause of the change in the DV.
15
Q
Evaluation of situational variables of obedience - cross cultural replications
A
- Findings of Milgrams variations research has been replicated in other cultures.
- Miranda et al found a high obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students.
- Strength - suggests that Milgrams conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures and apply to females too.
16
Q
Evaluation of situational variables for obedience - Obedience Alibi
A
- Offer an excuse for obedience in certain situations.
- Factors offer an excuse for evil behaviour e.g suggesting that the survivors of the Holocaust that the Nazi’s were simply following orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control is very offensive.
- Weakness - offensive and socially sensitive towards particular individuals therefore decreasing the credibility of the research.
17
Q
Obedience - social psychological variables - agentic shift
A
- Autonomous individuals behaving voluntarily and aware of consequences of own actions.
- Cognitive shift from autonomous to agentic shift known as agentic shift.
- Agentic state is where individuals hand responsibility over the authority figure giving order.
18
Q
What causes someone to undergo the agentic shift?
A
- Part of the socialisation process: train children from an early age to be obedient to authority at home etc.
19
Q
Evaluation of agentic state - Real life Application
A
- Those responsible for atrocities during the Second World War were asked why and what they did they replied that they were only obeying orders. They were acting in an agentic state and saw superiors as responsible.
- Strength - provides support from authority to agency in a real life crime.
20
Q
Evaluation of agentic state - limited explanation
A
- Does not explain many research findings of obedience studies:
- Does not explain why some of the participants in Milgrams study did not obey.
- Also does not explain findings from Hofling et al nurses field study. Agentic shift predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgrams participants but this was not the case.
- Weakness - suggest that agentic shift can only account for some but not all situations of obedience.
21
Q
Evaluation of Agentic Shift - Obedience Alibi
A
- Behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift.
- Mandel describes one incident involving German reserve police battalion 101 where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland. Did not have direct orders to do so.
- Weakness - challenges agentic shift explanation.
22
Q
Social psychological factors - legitimacy of authority
A
- Feel obliged to those in power because we respect their credentials and assume they know what they are doing.
23
Q
Evaluation of legitimacy of authority - real life application
A
- Explanation can help explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes.
- Keenan and Hamilton argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army.
- Strength - provides support for the idea that we are willing to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise authority.
24
Q
Evaluation of legitimacy of authority - research support
A
- Blass and Schmitt showed a film of Milgram study to students and asked them to identify who they felt who was responsible for the harm to the learner. Students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant. Said was responsibility was due to legitimate authority the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and had legitimate authority and being a scientist.
- Strength - students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience.
25
Evaluation of legitimacy of authority - cultural differences
- Is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
- Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. Kilham and Mann replicated Milgrams procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of participants went to end of voltmeter.
- Mandela found in Germany that 85% of participants went to end of voltmeter. Shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as Lego user, demanding obedience from people.
- Strength - reflects the way different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Increased validity.
26
Ardornos aim to investigate authoritarian personality
- To understand the anti semitism of the holocaust.
- To explain Milgrams findings of participants who were highly authoritarian tended to give stronger shocks than those who were less authoritarian.
27
Ardornos procedure to investigate authoritarian personality
- More than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
- Developed the F scale to measure authoritarian personality.
- Had 30 questions assessing nine personality dimensions.
- Had to rate their agreement with each item on a 6 point scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree to 6 - strongly agree.
28
Ardonos findings/ traits of the authoritarian personality
- Hostile towards those of perceived lower status.
- Obedient/ showed excessive respect towards people of perceived higher status.
- Respected authority
- Conformist
- Dogmatic - inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.
- Were prejudiced
29
Origins of authoritarian personality
- Formed in childhood as a result of a harsh parenting style. This style typically features extremely strict discipline, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings.
30
Evaluation of authoritarian personality - research support
- Milgram and his assistant Alan Elms conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient participant, scored highly on f scale, believing that there might be a link between authoritarian personality and obedience.
- Strength - provides support for the explanation.
31
Evaluation of authoritarian personality - correlation not causation
- Ardornonand his colleagues measured correlations between variables. Correlation does not equal causation.
- Found that authoritarianism was strongly correlated with measures of prejudice against minority groups. However, no matter how a strong a correlation between two variables may be, it does not mean one causes the other.
- Weakness - Ardorno can not claim that a harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personality.
32
Evaluation of authoritarian personality - limited explanation
- Can not explain obedience in entire societies:
- Seems unreasonable to assume that obedience as a personality trait could be found in the majority of a country’s population. In pre war Germany, millions of individuals all displayed obedient, racist and anti sematic behaviour. Despite the fact that they must have varied in personalities in many ways. Social identify may be more realistic in explaining obedience. Majority of the German people identified with the anti sematic maxi state and commuted terrible acts towards the jews.
- Weakness - dilutes validity of the explanation.
33
Evaluation of authoritarian personality - flawed methodology
- Greenstein goes as far as to describe the f scale as a comedy of methodological errors.
- The scale has come in for severe criticism because every one of its items is worded in the same direction. Means it is possible to get a high score for authoritarianism just by ticking the same line of boxes down one side of the page. People who agree with the items on the F scale are therefore not necessarily authoritarian but merely acquiesces and the scale is just measuring the tendency to agree with everything.
- threatens validity.
