Milgram’s Research

Question 1

What is obedience?

Answer 1

Social influence in which an individual follows a direct order

Question 2

What was Milgram’s aim of his experiment?

Answer 2

To see whether the holocaust was due to Dispositional or situational factors - test “Germans are different” hypothesis

Investigate level of obedience people would show when an authority figure told them to electrocute a fellow human being

Question 3

How did Milgram get his participants?

Answer 3

VOLUNTEER SAMPLING METHOD - sent advert for male participants at Yale University

Question 4

Who were the participants in Milgram’s research and what were they told?

Answer 4

40 male participants that weren’t NOT students
Paid $4 an hour
Told study was based on memory and learning

Question 5

What was the procedure in Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 5

1. Rigged confederate to be a “learner” - pp thought it was random
2. Pp saw “Mr Wallace” strapped to a chair with electrodes - said he had heart condition
3. Researcher + teacher went to another room with a shock generator
4. Participants told to read pairs of words that the leaner had to remember and would be shocked for incorrect answer / stalling - increased by 15 volts each time

Question 6

What did the shock generator say on it?

Answer 6

15 volts - slight shock
300 volts - severe shock
450 volts - xxx

Question 7

What noises did the “learner” make?

Answer 7

180 volts - can’t stand the pain
300 volts - begged for release
315 volts - silence

Question 8

What happened if a participant implied they didn’t want to/whether they should continue?

Answer 8

Standardised “prods” were given as a response by the researcher

Question 9

What were the 4 prods?

Answer 9

1 - please continue
2 - experiment requires you continue
3 - absolutely essential that you must continue
4 - no other choice, you must go on

Question 10

How were the prods used?

Answer 10

Prods were given in sequence if participants continued to disobey

Question 11

How would the experiment have been terminated?

Answer 11

If the participant continued to disobey after prod 4

Question 12

How did Milgram do his best to make sure the experiment was the same for everyone?

Answer 12

Same responses by the learner heard by the teacher

Standardised prods were given

Question 13

What were the results of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 13

All participants shocked up to 300 volts
65% shocked to 450 volts (14 defied)

Question 14

What reactions did the participants have during Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 14

Sweating
Trembling
Stuttering
Biting lips
Nervous laughter - quite common
…

Question 15

How did Milgram make sure his participants were ok after the experiment?

Answer 15

They were debriefed at the end of the study - assured behaviour was normal

All sent a follow up questionnaire - 84% glad to have participated

Participants interviewed a year later and judged to have sustained no psychological harm

Question 16

What was the conclusion of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 16

Normal people will obey authority even if their actions are detrimental

Hypothesis that “Germans are different” (Dispositional) not supported

Question 17

What were the strengths of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 17

Good external validity

Research support - Hofling (1966)

Supporting Replication - Le Jeu De La Mort (2010)

Question 18

How did Milgram’s experiment have good external validity?

Answer 18

Milgram argued that it reflected real life authority

Said that the experiment still showed the relationship between authority figure and participant

Question 19

How did Milgram’s experiment have research support?

Answer 19

Hofling et al study in 1996

Question 20

What was Hofling’s study?

Answer 20

22 nurses called by Dr Smith
Told to administer 20mg of astrofen (max dose was 10mg - said on packet)
21/22 nurses complied

Question 21

How was Hofling’s experiment deemed invalid?

Answer 21

Rank and Jonson said:
Astrofen wasn’t well known at the time
Nurses didn’t have opportunity to see higher-ups
(Both usually happens in hospitals)

Question 22

How did Rank and Jacobson prove Hofling’s experiment was invalid?

Answer 22

They replicated it but told the nurses to administer 3x the recommended dosage of Valium

Only 2/18 nurses prepared it

Question 23

What was Le Je De La Mort?

Answer 23

A replication of Milgram’s experiment, disguised as a new game show

Question 24

How did “Le Jeu De La Mort” show Milgram’s results weren’t one off?

Answer 24

Participants were paid to give fake electric shocks to confederates (didn’t know)
80% participants shocked up to 460 volts
Behaviour identical to Milgram’s study - nervous laughter and anxiety

Question 25

What were the weaknesses of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 25

Low internal validity (demand characteristics)

Ethical issues

Question 26

How did Milgram’s experiment have low internal validity?

Answer 26

Orne and Holland [1968) argued participants ,as have guessed shock were fake

Perry’s research (2013) studied Milgram’s research and found many participants expressing doubt of whether it’s real or not

Question 27

How does Milgram argue that his experiment did in fact have internal validity?

Answer 27

He reported that 70% of the participants believed the shocks were real

Question 28

What were the ethical issues of Milgram’s study?

Answer 28

1. Participants not fully informed - not full consent
2. It was very difficult to withdraw as they were told to keep going
3. Risk of long-term harm - participants put in stressful situation which they were led to believe that they severely harmed someone

Question 29

How does Milgram argue against the fact that the participants weren’t fully informed?

Answer 29

Experiment required the participants didn’t know the true nature of the study

Participants debriefed afterwards

Question 30

How does Milgram argue against the difficulty of withdrawal?

Answer 30

It was difficult but not impossible - weren’t physically forced to do it
35% did withdraw

Question 31

How does Milgram argue against long-term harm?

Answer 31

He debriefed the participants and told them it was a study

Obedient participants told their behaviour was normal