obedience Flashcards
Procedure: Milgrams study
- 40 male participants found through ads and payed 4.50$
- 20-50 y/o and any employment
- a confederate was the ‘learner’ and the true participant was the ‘teacher’. There was also an experimenter ( confederate) in a lab coat.
- confederate strapped to chair wired with electrodes , and teacher asked them questions. Everytime they got them wrong they gave an increasingly worse shock
- shock when from 15 to the max of 450 v which was a ‘severe dangerous shock’
- at 300 v the confederate had to bang on the wall and then gave no response to the next q
- if the teacher turned to experimenter for guidance then they alwasy responded with automated responses; “prods”.
1: please continue
2” experiment requires that you continue
4: ou have no choice, you must go on.
What inspired Milgrams obedience study
He wanted to discover reasons for obedience and why Germans followed orders of Hitler during the holocaust
Milgram findings ( stats)
Nobody stopped under 300 v
12.5% stopped AT 300 v ( 5 participants)
65% got to 450v
Observations were made of sweating, trembling and stuttering.
84% said after the experiment that they were glad to participate in a questionnaire.
I
Milgram Predictions
Psych students said that 3% would go to 450 v
3 situational variations
UPL : all the stats are against the 65% that went to the max 450 v in the original study
-Proximity: teacher and learner together 40%
Teacher had to force hand 30%
Orders given by phone 20%
-Uniform: normal clothes 20%
-Location: offices 47.5%
u20 p20,30,40 L 47.5
2 explanations/ theories for obedience
Dispositonal explanation
Agentic state
Agentic state/shift explanation
The state is when you see yourself as an agent to an external figure of authority
By obeying to authority you have less responsibility as you act on behalf of them.
Go from autonomous to agentic state
Pros of agentic state theory
PROS:
Blasts and Schmitt (2001) - students showed recordings of Milgrams study and asked who was responsible and they blamed the experimenter rather than participant. Shows a recognition of authority and the experimenter at the top of the hierarchy.
Cons of agentic state theory
- suggestive people are passive to authority without including the role of authrotity in obedience
- deterministic ( no free will)
- why do some people not obey
- cultural bias:
. Australia (1974) only 16% Got to 450 v
. Germany ( 1971) 85% went to 450 v
Dispositional explanation theory
- theory that regards personality
- authoritarian personality = people who are susceptible to obeying
This is a result of harsh parenting during childhood
Harsh parenting > for eg strict discipline > only conditioned love given only > creating resentment and hence hostility to people beneath them in terms of hierarchy of power.
Bickman (1974)
Bickman (1974)
. Field experiment had three confederates dress separately as a milkman, jacket and tie, and security guards uniform. They stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks, such as pick up litter…..
. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard then the one in jacket and tie, showing uniform does convey a certain authority and is a big situational factor.
Proximity variations and stats
Against the original obedience rate of 65% went to 450v
Teacher = ppt
Experimenter and learner = confederate
teacher could hear learner but could not see him
Obedience rate dropped from 65% > 40%
In one circumstance teacher had to push learners hand on electroshock plate, this proximity variable meant obedience dropped to 30%
In another circumstance experimenter left room and gave instructions by the phone, reducing it to 20.5% , also participants pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones in this incident.
Uniform variations and stats
Original = 65% with grey lab coat
Role of experimenter was taken over by member of public (confederate) in every day clothes, obedience rate dropping t 20% the lowest rate of all.
Bickman (1974)
. Field experiment had three confederates dress separately as a milkman, jacket and tie, and security guards uniform. They stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks, such as pick up litter…..
. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard then the one in jacket and tie, showing uniform does convey a certain authority and is a big situational factor.
cross cultural replications of Milgrams obedience study
Cross cultural bias: in different cultures, different societies have different hierarchical figures and structures.
For eg (1974) replication in Australia shows 16% shoved learner to the max
(1971) replication in Germany shows 85% obedience.
Miranda (1981) - obedience rate is over 90% in spanish students, shows that conclusions arent applicable to other cultures/genders: beta bias
> cultural difference is not due to nature, because all humans have the same nature. It suggests behaviour is learnt from the environment aka nurture.
Location variation and stats
Run down building rather than the Yale uni as the location experimenter having less authority meaning obedience fell to 47.5%
Shows importance of controlled setting
Pros/cons of Milgrams study
Pros()
Cons()
Pros
- control variables are controlled, systematically altered one variable at a time
-
- good external validity, as most important and controlled part was relationship between experimenter and teacher and the lab environment helped that and shows it as a reflection of relatinships in life.
Cons
- low internal validity - the participant may have behaved how they did because they didnt believe the experiment was real. ( PERRY 2013): listened to tapes from og experiment where the participants said they had doubts about the shocks.
- high cultural bias: ethnocentric ( male american ) : Australian, German, spanish, study’s
-
- social identity theory: key to obedience lies in group identification
Miranda (1981)
His variations have been replicated in other cultures.
For eg: Miranda (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. Suggesting Milgrams original conclusion aren’t just limited to American males, but valid across cultures and to females too
Example for importance of cross cultural studies plus the beta bias in Milgrams study
Hofling et al
Nurses study in a hospital
21/22 nurses showed obedience to unjustified requests from doctors/ medics in higher positions
Backs up Milgrams finding shows that findings can be applied to real life
Has high mundane realism
Kilmann (71) and Mantell (74)
Kilmann (71) - Australian obedience study: 16% obedient to 450 v
Mantell (74) - german obedience study: 85% obedient to 450 v
Sheridan and king
- experiment with real shocks to a puppy
- 54% of males and 100% of females gave what they thought was a fatal shock.
- ## shows beta bias ( underestimation of difference between males and females )
If one of the weaknesses of Milgrams study is that it has low internal validity (cause the participants behaved how they did cause they didnt believe shocks were real) give evidence to
1: back it up (1)
2: against it (2)
1:PERRY (2013) : Perry did research and listened to the tapes where participants said they had doubts about the shocks.
2: 84% IN the post-experiment interview reported they were glad to have participated
Milgrams said that 70% reported belief that shocks were genuine.
Perry (2013)
2013 Perry did research and listened to the tapes where participants said they had doubts about the shocks.
Blass and Schmitt (2001)
Supports agentic state
Students watched the original study and said the experimenter was responsible for harm to learner
Strength for agentic state theory and the experimenter is at the top of the social hierarchy
