obedience -Milgram Flashcards
milgram 1963 aim
interested in how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it harmed another person
procedure consisted of
volunteers
40 males aged 20- 50
drew straws to determine roles of either teacher or learner
what did the participants get for just turning up
$4.50
if the teacher refused what would happen
the experimenter would give prods to ensure they continued even when learner would yell to stop
what happened if the learner got a answer wrong
administer a shock increasing shock level each time from 15-450 volts
what did the learner have to do
learn pairs of words and then get tested by teacher
how many participants continued to the highest shock level
65%
what did all participants continue too
300 volts
who was the confederate
learner
what was the experimenter dressed in
a white lab coat
what type of factors contributed
situational factors– lab coat recognise authority
milgram 1974 explained what
explained the behaviour by suggesting 2 states of behaviour
what is the autonomous state–1974
people direct their own actions and take responsibility
what is the agentic state
don’t take responsibility for actions pass it onto someone else
milgram claimed people shift between but it fails to
explain irreversible transition
Lifton 1986- shows irreversible
found German doctors in Auschwitz changed from their medical professions into being lethal experiments
milgram expreriement variations
he varied the basic procedures so he could identify the factors affecting obedience
experiment variation 1
uniform
what did Milgram find when changing the Uniform
that obedience dropped to 20%
how did the uniform change
original lab coat
variation- experimenter called away for phone call, taken over by member of the public in ordinary cloths
experiment variation 2
change of location
how did they change the location
the experiment moved to a set of run down offices than Yale university
what were the finding of a changed location
dropped to 47.5%
experiment variation 3
proximity
how did the proximity vary
the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by phone from another room
findings of proximity
obedience fell to 20.5%
what did they find also in proximity variation
many participants cheated and missed out shocks or gave less voltage
evaluation negative
labatory conditions- not real life
Orne and Holland 1968 accused milgram of
lacking experimental realism
ethical issues 1-
deception - the teacher believed they administered real shocks and were unaware it was a confederate
ethical issue 2-
protection of participants- they were exposed to stressful situations may cause psychological harm
ethical issue 3-
right to withdrawal- experimenter gave orders which discouraged this
