MILGRAMS - STUDY OF OBEDIENCE

Question 1

AIM of research

Answer 1

to measure the process of obedience , even when the command requires destructive behaviour

Question 2

methodology

Answer 2

conducted in a laboratory environment - but was not an experiment

PPS:
selected 40 males between 20 and 50 years old
– they believed that they would be taking part in research about memory and learning
from the sample there was a range of jobs- e.g. postal clerk, engineers
– varied in education levels

Question 3

2 procedure of the shock machine

Answer 3

1. teacher was at I front of the shock generator
   – the machine had 30 switches- starts at 15 volts to 450 volts
2. labels were used to show the immensity of the shocks
   – ‘slight shock’= 15, ‘intense shock’= 225, ‘XXX’= 450 - potentially fatal shock
3. teacher was given a small shock so they knew the machine was real

Question 3

1 PROCEDURE

Answer 3

1. pps were greeted by the ‘experimenter’- 31 year old man dressed in a grey technicians coat, another pps was at the lab- a mild-mannered and likeable 47 year old accountant called Mr. Wallace
   – both of these men were accomplices of Milgram (called confederates)
2. pps drew slips of paper to decide which of them would play the role of teacher and learner
   – it was rigged- naïve pps would always be assigned the teacher role- Mr. Wallace= learner
3. They both were taken into a room where the ‘learner’ was strapped into an ‘electric chair’ to prevalent excessive movement
   – an electrode was placed on the learner’s wrist, linked to a shock generator in the adjoining room

Question 3

5 procedure of the dehoax

Answer 3

1. after research was completed, the teacher was throughly ‘dehoaxed’
2. they were the interviewed about their experience in this study

Question 3

4 procedure of the feedback from experimenter

Answer 3

1. the experimenter was trained to give ‘4 prods’ if the teacher hesitated to give the shock or asked for guidance:
   “please continue”
   “you have no other choice you must go on”
   “although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so go on” etc.

Question 4

3 procedure of the learning task

Answer 4

1. teacher was told to administer a shock every time a wrong answer was given and INCREASE the voltage each time
2. learner would make no comment or protest until 300 volts was given- at this level he could pound on the wall but nothing else after

Question 5

what was the quantitative data?

Answer 5

14 Yale psychology students estimated that 0-3% of pps would administer the 450 volts, the findings of the actual study showed:
-5 (12.5%) refused to continue after 300 volts
-26 (65%) administered the full 450 volts
- 35% defied the experimenters authority

Question 6

what was the qualitative data?

Answer 6

a large number showed extreme tension: “subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingertips (nails) into their flesh”

• 14 pps displayed= “nervous laughter and smiling”
  —> indicated they were acted against their values
  —> in the dehoax, these pps explained they were not sadistic, their laughter was due to being uncomfortable
• 3 pps had “full blown uncontrollable seizures”
  —> 1 was so bad the session had to be stopped

Question 7

conclusions

Answer 7

Milgram concluded that the circumstances in which the pps found themselves in created situation in which it proved difficult to disobey
He suggested 13 elements in this situation that had contributed to these levels of obedience: e.g.
- located at a university (prestigious) provided authority
- pps assumed the experimenter knew what he was doing and had a worthy purpose, so should be followed
- pps didn’t want to disrupt the study- felt under obligation due to voluntary concert
- pps assumed discomfort caused was minor and temporary and scientific gains were important.

Question 8

who claimed this study lacked internal validity?

Answer 8

Orne and Holland (1968):
- demand characteristics are an issue
- the participants didn’t believe the shocks were real as it wouldn’t make sense that somebody in a learning experiment would receive fatal shocks.
- this lead to participants behaviour being a result of demand characteristics.

Question 9

who argued psychological harm was caused to participants?

Answer 9

Baumrind (1964)
- MILGRAM showed insufficient respect for his participants
- there were inadequate steps taken to protect them from harm
- procedure caused longe term harm

Question 9

what did Milgram say to counter Baumrind’s criticism?

Answer 9

• 84% of pps reported they were glad to have been involved in the study

Question 10

what did Perry (2012) say?

Answer 10

• milgram failed in his duty of care for participants
• some were waiting for up to a year before they were debriefed despite the fact they had left the lab believing they had killed somebody.

Question 11

what did Mandel (1998) say?

Answer 11

• argued the relevance of Milgram’s research to the Holocaust is greatly overstated
• led to an oversimplified explanation of the atrocities committed during the holocaust

Question 12

how did milgram counter Mandel’s criticism?

Answer 12

• many camp guards did feel they were working for a greater good just as the pps were persuaded that the shocks were justified and important
• same mental process could explain behaviour in both groups