Obedience Flashcards
what was Milgram’s (1963) study?
40 males aged between 20 and 50 responded to a newspaper ad that asked for volunteers in a study of memory and learning at Yale
they were introduced to ‘mr wallace’ and we’re assigned the role of teacher or learner, and the draw was rigged to pps were always the teacher and mr wallace was the learner
the pps were given a sample shock of 45v, and gave an increasing shock when the learner made an error up to 450v, the learner cried in pain
the experimenter gave prods such as please continue, the experiment requires you to continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue, and you have no choice you must go on
they were debriefed at the end
what did Milgram’s (1963) study find?
all pps have at least 300v
65% gave the full 450v to an apparently dead mr wallace
after the maximum shock was administered, they were asked to continue at this level until the experimenter stopped it, and obedient pps were relieved or shook their head in regret
pps showed signs of tension, and 14/40 had nervous laughing fits, and 3 had seizures
what are the strengths of milgram’s experiment?
good internal validity
good experimental validity
hofling et al research support
standardised procedure
research support burger 2009
what are the weaknesses of milgram’s study?
low ecological validity, lacks mundane realism
may show demand characteristics
low population validity
ethical issues
pps may have known it wasn’t real so have been acting
what was Hofling et al’s (1966) study?
field experiment on nurses
given orders from a doctor over the phone to administer a dose of medication over the maximum allowed
21/22 obeyed
when other nurses were asked to discuss what they would do in similar circumstances, 21/22 said they would not comply with the order
ethical issues
what did Burger (2009) study?
found levels of obedience almost identical to those found by milgram’s almost 46 years earlier
support for historical validity
what are situational variables?
location
proximity
uniform
how did proximity affect milgram’s experiment?
when the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms, obedience was 65% when in the same room it was 40%
TOUCH PROXIMITY -
the teacher forced the learners hand onto the shock plate, and obedience dropped to 30%
REMOTE PROXIMITY -
the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher over the phone, obedience dropped to 20.5%
(pps also pretended to give shocks in this condition or gave lesser ones)
how did location affect milgram’s experiment?
when in a prestigious university setting such as Yale, obedience was 65%
when in a run down office down town obedience was 47.5%
how did uniform affect milgram’s experiment?
when the experimenter wore a lab coat obedience was 65%
when the experiment was an ordinary member of the public (confederate) obedience was 20%
what did Bickman (1974) study?
repeated milgram’s experiment when researchers were dressed as either in a guards uniform, milkman’s uniform, or civilian clothing
the researcher gave a pedestrian an instruction such as ‘pick up this bag for me’, ‘give the man a dime for the meter’, and ‘you have to stand on the other side of this pole’
80% obeyed the researcher in a guard uniform, only 40% obeyed the other two uniforms
what are the strengths of situational variables?
bickman
bushman (1988) - a female researcher, dressed either in a police-style’ uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar, stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter. When she was in uniform, 72% of the people obeyed, whereas obedience rates were much lower when she was dressed as a business executive (48%) or as a beggar (52%).
When interviewed afterwards, people claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority
good control of variables similar results when replicated
what are the weaknesses of situational variables?
lacks internal validity as pps may have guessed the shocks weren’t real so showed demand characteristics
may be considered offensive as it removes personal responsibility from people
