Obedience Flashcards
What was the aim of Milgram’s study?
To investigate obedience to authority.
How many participants were recruited?
40 American male participants.
What did participants believe the study was about?
Memory and learning.
How were roles assigned?
By drawing lots, but it was rigged—“Mr. Wallace” (a confederate) was always the Learner, and the true participant was always the Teacher.
Who played the Experimenter?
Another confederate, dressed in a lab coat.
What was the Teacher required to do?
Administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the Learner for every mistake.
How high did the voltage go?
From 15V to 450V in 15V increments.
What happened if the Teacher hesitated?
The Experimenter used verbal “prods” to encourage them to continue.
What percentage of participants stopped at 300 volts?
12.5% (five participants).
What percentage of participants continued to 450 volts?
65%.
What qualitative observations were made?
Participants showed extreme tension; three had full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
What did psychology students predict before the study?
That no more than 3% would go to 450 volts.
How did participants feel after the study?
84% were glad they participated (follow-up questionnaire)
What does the study suggest about obedience?
People obey legitimate authority, even when it causes harm to others.
strength of milgrams study, obedience
One strength is that replications have supported Milgram’s research findings.
In a French TV documentary/game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors) (Beauvois et al. 2012).
80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants, e g. many signs of anxiety.
This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.
limitation (1) of milgrams study, obedience
One limitation is that Milgram’s study lacked internal validity.
Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So they were ‘play-acting.
This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real
This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.
limitation (2) of milgrams study, obedience
limitation is that the findings are not due to blind obedience.
Haslam et al. (2014) found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the fourth prod disobeyed.
According to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth prod required blind obedience.
This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
