Milgrams test of obedience

Question 1

Background MIlgram

Answer 1

Milgram was a Jew who’s family had fled Nazi
persecution – he was therefore interested in the
holocaust

Question 2

Background Asch’s influence

Answer 2

He was intrigued by Solomon Asch’s studies of
conformity (Asch, 1951

Question 3

Background and aims

Answer 3

He wanted to explore scientifically the underlying
psychological mechanisms behind destructive obedience. He considered taking his experiment to Germany. He wanted to use a procedure more meaningful
than Asch’s line-length judgements

Question 6

Diverse sample (P1)

Answer 6

Sample was diverse – broad range of occupations and ages, mostly male. Participants turn up at lab and meet another participant

Question 7

Basic procedure 2

Answer 7

Fake random role selector to select participant as “teacher.” Shock generator machine and sample shock (45v) based on an aggression machine that was invented in 1961. Read words and test memory. Each mistake punished with shock increasing per mistake (15-450, 15 each time) If participant became reluctant experimenter/confed used a script with prompts

Question 8

Room Layout

Answer 8

Layout
Experimenter sat behind the teacher who faced away the wall . on the otherside of teachers right wall was participant.

Question 9

Script

Answer 9

“Please continue” OR “Please go on”
“The experiment requires that you continue”
“It is absolutely essential that you continue”
“You have no other choice, you must go on”

Question 10

Basic dependant measures

Answer 10

Max voltage participant willing to shock to —v
Verbal scripts
Video recording
Debrief material

Question 11

findings (6 marks)

Answer 11

Students, behavioural scientists and laypersons asked to predict. All predicted none would reach max voltage
Pilor study everyone went to 450
Mean disobey voltage = 360 v (180v “cant take it” 270 “ARGHHHHH”)
65% went all the way
No participant didnt reach 300
Became infamous and global from this experiment

Question 12

Variations & results

Answer 12

Participant left alone = 50v mean
2 experimenters present who argues - none continued
Run down block instead of university - 48% fully obedient
Experimenter replaced by layperson - 20% obedient
Touch proximity - 30% fully obedient
Prox or learner decreased - 93%
Prox of authority reduced (orders by phone) - 20.5%

Question 13

Cross culture results

Answer 13

Cross culture
Holland (92%)
Spain (over 90)
USA (85%)
Italy ^
Germany ^
Austria 80%
Jordan 62
UK 50
AUS men 40
AUS women 12

Question 14

quote; distress

Answer 14

“I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse.” Participants showed visual signs of distress like nervous laughter, trembled, bit lips, moaned, Textbook definition of TWEAKING!!

Question 15

Early explanations; validity

Answer 15

Participants clocked it was fake?; no, almost all Ps said they believed it to be real and painful.

Question 16

Early explanations; aged poorly?

Answer 16

Relic of time? Maybe but unlikely, Burger in 2009 replicated only up to 150 but similar levels in obedience of all genders.

Question 17

Early explanations; mean participants?

Answer 17

Mean participants? Dangers of fundamental attribution error (ross 1977) 911 and 7/7 playlist. Elms and Milgram found no significant personality differences

Question 17

Real life case studies

Answer 17

Eichmann (arendt 1963)
My lai
Iraq

Question 18

Burger 2007

Answer 18

Burger 2007 replication
Tested 18 men and found 65% agreed to administer painful replication. 22 women signed up and 73% yielded to orders. Ps had high lvl of education 40 percent Bach and 20 M degrees. Very diverse group 54 white, 18 asian, 13 Latin, 8.6 asian and 4.3 Afr American.

Question 19

Agentic shift + quote

Answer 19

Individual becomes an instrument of authority, no longer fully autonomous –
“This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process.” (Milgram, 1974) –
“…when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.” (1974)

Question 20

results of agentic shift

Answer 20

Altered conscious almost
Believed to have No long term consequences
Human groups evolved requiring a basic propensity to structural organisation
Obedience is often rewarded
Socially organised evil

Question 21

Explanations; responsibility

Answer 21

Displacemetn of responsibility; powerful way of keeping self esteem and self concept in the face of threat (Berkowitz)

Question 22

explanations; Normality of the sitch

Answer 22

Norms - P entered into a contract

Question 23

Explanations; Wye

Answer 23

Buffer (technology) see Wye, 1971; Fisher (1981) Incremental steps – ‘foot in the door’ technique
Wye nuclear weapons personell; similar kind of duality of self, personal responsibility diffused, emotional and moral reactions blunted, never told the targets, no one person can feel solely responsible, often work in pairs in middle silos so they can conformity issues well, crew dont fire missiles, they enable launch procedures.

Question 24

Other explanations

Answer 24

Yale - rep high
Cause respected too - scientific
Surveillance increases pressure and evidence of agentic
Little time to think due to pressure
Focusing on getting it over and done with
Devalueing learner - he was stupid so he deserved it

Question 25

A03; ethics

Answer 25

Ethics (e.g. Baumrind, 1964):- – Caused harm to participants? Attitudes to trust and authority Stress, self-image – No true informed consent? – Encouraged participants to continue when they wanted to quit

Question 26

A03 criticism; ecological validity

Answer 26

Ecological validity (e.g. Fromm, 1974) – Baumrind – lab is a strange setting Nazi comparison is spurious

Question 27

A03 criticism - Milgram responds

Answer 27

Milgram’s response (1964) – Only 1.3% of Ps had negative feelings about taking part – Psychiatric assessment found no harm caused – Experimental lab IS a valid setting for study of obedience – It may be a good thinf to make people question authority more

Question 28

Recent criticisms

Answer 28

Is the banality of evil argument overplayed
Woek of cesarani 2005 on eichmann
Is personality really unimportant
Blass 1991
Alternate explanations
Haslam et. al. (2014) – engaged followership model: “Our own research shows that tyranny does not result from blind conformity to rules and roles, it is a creative act of followership that flows from identification with authorities who represent vicious acts as virtuous.”