obedience - milgram baseline Flashcards
definition for obedience
form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order
and the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish
when was the study conducted
milgram (1963)
aim
investigate whether germans were particularly obedient to authority figures and how far would ordinary people go when obeying an instruction that could potentially harm another person
procedure
- 40 randomly selected male (aged 20-50) volunteers
- participants always assigned teacher
- learner/experimenter were confederates
- experimenter dressed in grey lab coat
- learner taken to room with electrodes attached to arms
- teacher/experimenter in room next door with electric shock generator 15V to 450V
- teacher read list of words to learner & asked to recall word from list of 4
- teacher told to administer electric shock each time learner was wrong (increased 15V each time)
- if teacher refused/hesitated, prods were given (eg. ‘please continue’ & ‘you have no choice but to continue’)
results
- 65% of participants (teachers) continued to 450V (highest)
- 100% reached 300V
conclusion
- ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to an extent of killing an innocent human being
- therefore, obedience is ingrained in us all
AO3 +) research support
E:
- beauvious et. al (2012) replicated findings in french documentary made about reality tv
- participants believe they were contestants in pilot episode of new show, where they’re paid to administer electric shocks to other participants (actors) in front of audience
- 80% of participants delivered maximum shock of 460 volts when ordered by presenter to an apparently unconscious man
T: supports milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrates how they weren’t due to particular circumstances
AO3 -) may not have been testing what milgram intended to
+) counterpoint
E:
- milgram reported 75% of participants believed the shocks were real
- however, orne and holland (1968) argue participants behaved the way they did as they didn’t believe the set-up, so were ‘play-acting’
- perry (2013) supported this by conducting research where they listened to milgram’s tapes & reported roughly half believed the shocks were real, and 2/3 of these were disobedient
T: participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study
HOWEVER: sheridan and king (1972) conducted a similar study to milgram with participants administering real shocks to a puppy - 54% of men & 100% women gave what they believed was a fatal shock to an already distressed animal
AO3 -) milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justifiable
E:
- haslam et al. (2014) showed milgram’s participants obeyed when the experimenter delivered the first 3 prods: ‘please continue’, ‘the experiment requires that you continue’ and ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
- when given the 4th prod (‘you have no choice, you must go on’) every participant disobeyed
- this may be explained by the social identity theory, where participants only obey if they identify with the scientific aims of the study
- when ordered to blindly obey the authority figure, they refused
T: the social identity theory may provide more valid interpretation of milgram’s findings, especially as he suggested ‘identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience
AO3 -) ethical issues
E:
- milgram deceived participants by allowing them to believe the allocation to teacher/learner was random but it was fixed
- participants also believed shocks were real
- milgram dealt with this by debriefing the participants
- however, baumrind (1964) criticised milgram & argued deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants & researchers
T: research does not adhere to ethical guidelines
