Obedience & Milgram Flashcards
Obedience
Type of social influence which causes a person to act in a response to an order given by another person. Person giving order usually has power and authority.
‘a person who carries out orders given by a legitimate authority figure’
Milgram’s Study
1) Aims: Pps told aim was to find effects of punishment on learning.
Sample: 40 American males recruited by ads paid $4 (20-50 yrs old)
2) Procedure:
- Rigged draw to allocate roles –> Learners were confederates, pps always teacher.
- Teacher given mild shock to prove its real but cons never received shocks.
- Were told no permanent tissue damage would be done.
- Separate rooms - learner heard not seen
- Teacher read out word pairs, then read first word from pair & learner had to respond.
- Shocked if answered wrong - 15V to 450V, up in 15s.
- Learners acted to make realistic - At 300V cons pounding on wall, begging to stop.
- Standardised prompts –> ‘you have no other choice you must go on’ , ‘the experiment requires that you continue’
Results & Conclusion
- 26/40 went up to 450V, 65%
- 100% went to 300V, 14 refused to go on at various levels after 300V.
Conclusion:
- Mil intended to do study in U.S.A then Germany, he believed levels of obedience would be different - (e.g. higher in Ger)
-Results were shocking, showed we are surprisingly obedient to authority.
- Outcome of situation outweighs dispositional factors.
Evaluation - Ethical Issues
1) Informed Consent - not obtained, they were deceived –> would ‘ruin experiment’
2) Right to Withdraw - if pps refused they received prods to continue –> should’ve been made clear.
3) Protection from harm - pps suffered from stress of the experiment –> nervous tension, 3 seizures - Mil argued effects were short term.
4) Deception - deceived to avoid demand characteristic –> fake aim & believed they were shocking ppl
POSITIVE:
Debriefing - were debriefed after study about true nature of it & told their behaviour was normal + 1 yr later pps were followed up to ensure no long-term psycho problems.
Methodological Issues
1) Sample - purely American men –> can’t generalise results (but was replicated across cultures & found similar results).
2) Pps may have displayed demand characteristics, if they guessed experimental hypothesis (unlikely to).
3) Lacks mundane realism - not an everyday obedience task.
4) Low ecological validity - lab environment
Limitation of Study
LACKED INTERNAL VALIDITY
1) Some argued pps guessed electric shocks were fake - so were play-acting –> Supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of pps believed shocks were real —> suggests pps may have been responding to demand characteristics.
Limitation of Study
FINDINGS ARE NOT DUE TO BLIND OBEDIENCE:
1) Haslam et al. found that all pps given first 3 prods obeyed experimenter but those given the 4th prod disobeyed –> According to social identity theory, first 3 prods required identification with the science of research but 4th required blind obedience —> Shows findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims & not as blind obedience to authority.
Variations of Milgram
Situational Variables:
1) Location - From prestigious Yale Uni to run down office block (less reputable) –> 20% obedience rate (450V) –> obedience higher in uni since setting was legitimate & had authority.
2) Proximity of Victim - From separate rooms to same rooms –> 40%
3) Proximity of Authority - From same room to giving orders by phone (less pressure) –> 23% & pps often faked giving shocks –> decreased proximity allows ppl to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of actions.
4) Presence of Allies - No allies to 2 pp cons refused to carry on (used defiance of peers). –> 10%
5) Choice of Shock Level - 95% refused to shock when con protested the 1st time –> 2.5 % (1/40 went to max)
6) Uniform - man in grey lab coat to ‘ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes –> 20% because uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society.
Strength for Influence of SVs
RESEARCH SUPPORT
1) Bickman’s confederates dressed in different outfits & issued demands (e.g. pick up litter) to ppl of New York city –> ppl twice as likely to obey ‘security guard’ than ‘milkman’ con –> Shows a situational variable, such as uniform, has a powerful effect on obedience.
Strength for SVs
CROSS-CULTURAL APPLICATION
1) Meeus & Raajimakers worked with Dutch pps, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees - found 90% obedience & it fell when proximity decreased –> shows Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to American males but are valid across cultures.
Limitation for SVs
DANGER OF SVs
1) Milgram’s conclusions suggest situation variables determine obedience - Mandel argues this offers an excuse for genocide e.g. situational explanations hugely oversimplify causes of the Holocaust & are offensive to survivors –> allows others to excuse destructive behaviours in terms of ‘just obeying orders’.
