Obedience , as investigated by Milgram Flashcards
What was the aim of Milgram’s procedure?
He aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals obey an authority figure , even when asked to perform actions that conflicted with their personal conscience.
What was the procedure for Milgram’s study?
Recruited 40 American male participants for a “study of memory”. A confederate=”Learner”
the true participant
=”Teacher”. Another confederate(“experimenter”)wore a lab coat. The teacher could only hear the Learner. Teacher gave learner increasing electric shocks each time he made a mistake on a task, shocks(fake) increased by 15 volts up to 450V.A shock machine was made to make shocks appear to increase. If the teacher wanted to stop the experimenter gave a “prod” to continue.
What were the key findings of milgrim’s study
12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300V , 65% continued to 450V(highest level).Observations (qualitative data) - participants showed signs of extreme tension.3 had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’
What were some other findings of milgram’s study?
Before the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the naive participants responses.Students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V(baseline findings were unexpected).
After the study, participants were debriefed. Follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they participated.
What was the conclusion of Milgram’s study(1963)?
We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else.Certain situational factors encourage obedience (Milgram investigated these).
What’s an example of a replication that supported Milgrams study?
In a french 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 max 460V to an “unconscious”man.Their behaviour matched Milgram’s participants:
many signs of anxiety. This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.
How did Milgrams study lack
internal validity?
Orne and Holland(1968) argued participants knew electric shocks were fake=they were play-acting.Perry(2013) discovered that only 1/2 of the participants believed shocks were real.This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.
What’s a counterpoint to Orne and Holland (1968) and Perrys(2013) views ?
Sheridan and King’s(1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of males and 100% of females delivered a “fatal shock”.
This suggests obedience in Milgram’s study might be genuine.
How can we argue that findings in Milgrams study weren’t just due to blind obedience ?
Haslam et al.(2014)-every participant given the first 3 prods obeyed the Experimenter,those given the 4th prod disobeyed.
social identity theory=first 3 prods required identification with science of the research but the 4th prod=blind obedience. This shows that findings are explained as identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
What ethical issues were there in Milgrams study?
Participants in the study were deceived,they thought shocks were real.Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.Baumrind (1964)felt deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers e.g. no informed consent possible,research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the public eye.
