milgrams study

Question 1

how many people were recited and how

Answer 1

Recruited 40 male participants through newspaper ads and flyers in past about a study on memory
Ages 20 - 25v years old and jobs ranged from unskilled to professional

Question 2

Baseline produce:

Answer 2

When they arrived they were each introduce to a confederate of milgrams.
How were the teacher and learner decided? They drew lots but the drew was fixed so that the participant was always the Teacher.
Who was the experimenter? Was a confederate

Question 3

what happened

Answer 3

Learner strapped tyo chair with electrodes
Teacher was to give server electric shock for every mistake when learning
The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher but thereafter the shocks were nit real

Shock levels started at 15 very light
Rose 30 levels to 459 volts danger server shock
When teacher got to 300 volts the ;earner produced on the wall and then gave no response to the next question
314 volt shock the learner pounded on the wall again but there after there was no response from the learner

If the teacher turned to the experiment for guidance the ec=xperiment gave standard instruction no respite is treated like wrong answer
If teacher was unsure about continung, the experimenter used four standard ‘prods’

Question 4

What was the aim:

Answer 4

was to assess the obedience in a situation where an authority figure ordered the paticpant to give an increasingly strong shock to a learner in a different room.

Question 5

findings

Answer 5

Findings:
No participants stopped below 300 volts
12.5% stopped at 300 volts intense shock
65% continued to highest level 450 volts
Oversvation/ qualitative data: participants showed signs of extreme tension, sweating, trembling, groan, dig their fingernails into their hands, and seizures

Question 6

what happened before the study

Answer 6

Prior owner f study asked students to predict. Printed that only 3% would get to highest level
Participants were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was normal. A follow ip questionnaire shows 84% were glad they participated.
German people are not ‘different’. The American in his study continued to administer electric shocks and obey order even when they knew it would harm someone.

Question 7

low internal validity

Answer 7

Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved in this way because they didn’t really believe the set up ie no electric shock but milligram reported that 75% of participants believed the shcoks were genuine?
Ome and Holland: was milligram testing what he intended to test - study lacks internal validity
Perry (2013) listened to tapes of milligrams partucoants and reported that only half od participants thought shocks were real. Of thus 50% two thirds wee disobedient. Demand characteristics at play here.

Question 8

Counterpoint

Answer 8

Another limitation is that milligrams conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified. 
Alex Haslam (2014) shoed that milgramsd participants obeyed when the experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods. But when there was fourth prod “you have no other choice you must go on” they disobeyed. According to social identify theory participants in milligrams study inly obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research “ the experiment requires that you continue”

Question 9

what was the game of death

Answer 9

The game of death: documentary about reality TV in France 2010.
Le jeu de la mart replicates milgrams study
Participants thought they were contestants on a game show called la zone Xtreme
Paid to give fake electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants who were actually actors in front of a studio audience
80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 Volts to an unconscious man
Behaviour identical to Milgram original: nail biting, anxiety nervous laugh.

Question 10

Conclusion:

Answer 10

milgram conclueded that the German people are not different. He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience

Question 11

ethical issues

Answer 11

The participants in this study were deceived they thought teacher and student was random.
They also thought that the shock was real.

Question 12

However Diana baurmind (1964)

Answer 12

criticised milligram for deciding his participants. She objected because that deception in psyological studies can have serious consequences for participants and reserachers.

Question 13

Situational variables milgram explanation

Answer 13

Factores that Milgram believed influenced the level of obedience shown by participants. These variables are related to external circumstances srather than to the personalities of the people involved and include

Question 14

what where the situational variables

Answer 14

Proximity
Location
Uniform

Question 15

proximity

Answer 15

Proximity(in the same room)
when the teacher and learner in the same room the obedience rate dropped form the original 65% ro 40%

In the touch proximity
Variation, the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate obedience dropped to 30%

Remote instruction (experimenter gave instructions by phone) obedience fell to 20.5

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to.
Milgram study:

Question 16

equalation of proximity

Answer 16

Explanation for proximity: decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distant themselves from the consequences of their actions. So in other words being aware of what is going on.

Question 17

location

Answer 17

Location milligram experiment

Milgram conducted a variation in a run down office block rather than at Yale, in lthis location obedience fell to 47.5%

Question 18

explanation of location

Answer 18

Explanation: shared this ;egimacy and that obedience was expected ( Yale). However obedience still quite high because of the scinetiufc nature of the produce

Question 19

authority milgram

Answer 19

Authority
Grey lab coat
Variation experimenter redivided phone call right at start of experiment and ordinary member of the public actor replaced him

Question 20

evaluation of uniform

Answer 20

Explanation uniform encourage obedience because rtgy are widely recognised symbols of authority. Bvecuae it is legit (granted by society)

Question 21

Evaluation of milligrams variations research super

Answer 21

BICKMAN (1974)
Nyc
3 confederates dress in different uniforms: jacket and tie milkman and security guard
Confederates stood in the street and asked passers by to pick up litter or give a coin for a parking meter

Question 22

Evaluation if milligrams variations lack of validity

Answer 22

Ome and holland criticism of Milhgrams: participants figured out it was fake
This is even more likely with the variations especially the member of public telling the teacher what to do !
Did participants see through the deception

Question 23

Cross cultural replication

Answer 23

Miranda et al (1981) found obendicence rate >90% with Spanish students
Suggests that obedience findings extend to other cultures and women

Question 24

Counterpoint

Answer 24

Smith and bond (1998): most replications occurred in Western, developed societies they reflection if India and Jordan culturally different from the us while other countries were similar to the us. Therefore it may not be apportaiate to conclude that milligrams findings apply to people in all or most cultures.

Question 25

Low internal validity

Answer 25

One limitation is that participants may have been aware the produce was faked.
Orne and holland (1968) made this criticism of milligrams baseline study. They said it was more likely because of the variation because of extra manipulation of variables. A good example is that the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a member of the public. Even milligrams agreed it was possible
Therefore in all of milligrams studies It is unclear weather the findings are generally due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just play acted. (so responded to demand characterises)