Milgram (social influence)

Question 1

background of procedure

Answer 1

• 40 participants at a time series of conditions, each varying in some aspect of the situation to calculate its effect on obedience.
• participants were told it was a study on how punishment affects learning
• 2 confederates: an experimenter and a man who was introduced as another volunteer participant

Question 2

what is the procedure of the experiment

Answer 2

• the 2 participants drew lots to see who would be teacher and learner.
• this was rigged so that the real participant was always the teacher and the fake participant the learner.
• teacher tested learner on ability to remember word pairs. each time they got one wrong the teacher gave out electric shocks, from 15 to 450 volts, increasing by 15v each time
• if the teacher asked to stop the experiment had a series of prods. e.g. “it is absolutely essential that you continue”

Question 3

what did Milgram do before the study?

Answer 3

• asked different groups of people to predict how long participants would go before refusing to continue.
• they predicted that very few would go beyond 150v and 1 in 1000 would administer the full 450 v

Question 4

what were the results of Milgrams experiment

Answer 4

• 26 of the 40 participants (65%) continued to the maximum shock level of 450v
• this was despite the shock generator being labelled “danger:sever shock” at 420v and “xxx” at 450v
• all participants went to 300v with only 5 (12.5%) stopping there.

Question 5

explain the ethical issues involved with Milgram’s experiment

Answer 5

• Milgram deceived his participants by telling them they were involved in a study on the effects of punishment on learning rather then the real aims of the study.
• This made it impossible for participants to make an informed decision before giving their consent to participate in the study.
• although Milgram claimed that participants were free to leave at any time, the prods from the experimenter made it more difficult for some participants who felt they had no choice but to continue

Question 6

explain the strength that Milgram’s study has historical validity

Answer 6

• Blass carried out a statistical analysis of Milgrams studies and experiments conducted by other researchers between 1961 and 1985
• By carrying out a correlation all analysis he found that the later studies had no more/less obedience than the ones conducted earlier.
• Burger (2009) found levels of obedience almost identical to those found by Milgram 46 years earlier. Milgrams findings apply to today.

Question 7

explain the strength that there is external validity in Milgram’s experiment

Answer 7

• Hofling’s research supported Milgrams findings.
• Tested nurses at a hospital. Dr. gave instructions that they give drugs to a patient.
• The order went against hospital regulations; not to take instructions over the phone from an unknown doctor.
• The dosage would have resulted in an overdose. 21 out of 22 nurses complied. Shows how people obey authority figures.

Question 8

explain how Rank and Jacobson questioned the external validity of Hofling’s research.

Answer 8

• They gave nurses an irregular order but the drug was familiar and they could consult with their peers.
• This is a more realistic situation in terms of actual practice.
• 16/18 nurses disobeyed.

shows that Milgram and Hofling’s findings about obedience to authority might not be reflected in real life

Question 9

what are the three situational factors in obedience

Answer 9

proximity
location
the power of uniform

Question 10

explain the variation of proximity

Answer 10

• both teacher and learner in same room
• obedience fell to 40% as teacher was now able to experience the learners anguish more directly
• in an extreme version the teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate. (touch proximity condition)
• obedience dropped to 30%

Question 11

explain the variation of location

Answer 11

• in the original study many participants said they wouldn’t have shocked the learner if the experiment was somewhere else.
• Milgram moved the study to a run down office in Bridgeport.
• obedience rates did drop but not significantly, with 48% of participants delivering the 450 b max shock

Question 12

explain the variation of the power of uniform

Answer 12

• A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy
• it was found in Milgrams study that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes

Question 13

Weakness of Milgrams study

Answer 13

• some researchers have suggested that the participants didn’t acknowledge the electric shack as real
• Perry reviewed the interview tapes and found that a significant number of participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the electric shocks
• however , quantitative data gathered by Milgram directly suggested that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were real

Question 14

Explain the real life example of the My Lai Massacres to support agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Answer 14

• thousands of American soldiers killed civilians in Vietnamese villages
• can be explained in terms of the agentic state theory - soldiers were simply obeying orders from their general and so shifted responsibility for their actions into them
• this authority was legitimate due to their high position in the army social hierarchy ranks
• suggest that agentic state and legitimacy of authority are valid explanations of obedience