Obedience Flashcards
Milgram (1961)
Procedure
- 40 American men participated in a “memory study”.
- The participant read questions to the learner (a confederate) and administers shocks - increasing in voltage - for incorrect answers.
- Experimenter gives prompts to make the participant continue.
Milgram (1961)
Findings
- 65% gave shocks of 450V (maximum).
- 100% went to 300V.
- Many showed signs of anxiety (i.e. sweating); three had seizures.
Milgram (1961)
Variations
- Proximity.
- Location.
- Uniform.
Milgram (1961) Variations
Proximity
Situational Variable
- Obedience at 40% when T and L were in the same room.
- 30% for touch proximity.
Milgram (1961) Variations
Location
Situational Variable
- Obedience 47.5% in run-down office.
- Baseline study was conducted at a university.
University’s prestige increased the experiement’s legitimacy.
Milgram (1961) Variations
Uniform
Situational Variable
- Obedience 20% when experimenter (authority) was a “member of the public”.
- Uniform is an indicator for legitimacy of authority.-
Milgram (1961) Evaluation
Research Support
- French TV show replicated Milgram’s experiment in front of an audience.
- 80% gave the maximum shock and all showed signs of anxiety (like in Milgram’s study).
Supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience and shows they weren’t due to special circumstances.
Milgram (1961) Evaluation
Low Internal Validity
- It was argued that the participants behaved as they did because they didn’t believe the set up and were play-acting.
- Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and she noted only half of them believed the shocks were real.
Participants were only responding to demand characterists and trying to fulfill the aim of the study.
Milgram (1961) Evaluation
Counterpoint
Low Internal Validity
- A study was conducted with real shocks to a puppy by the experimenters orders.
- 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock.
Shows participants were obedient even when the shocks were real.
Milgram (1961) Evaluation
Interpretation of findings
- Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not have been justified.
- Milgram’s participants obeyed when the first 3 prompts were given.
- Every participant - without exception - disobeyed after the 4th prompt.
- According to Social Identity Theory (SIT), participants obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research (‘the experiment requires you to continue’).
- Refused to blindly obey an authority figure.
SIT may be provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s research. Milgram himself suggested that ‘SIT is a reason for obedience’.
Milgram (1961)
Aim
To access obedience levels.
Definitions
Agentic State
Acting as an agent of another person.
Definitions
Autonomous State
Freedom to act according to conscience.
Definitions
Agentic Shift
The switch from autonomous to agentic state.
Definitions
Binding Factors
Allows individuals to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain.