Obedience - Milgram's Research Flashcards
Define obedience
A type of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from a perceived authoritative figure
Name the study which investigated obedience and the sample
Milgram (1963) - 40 male volunteers
Describe the procedure of Milgram’s study
Participants told that the study was about how punishment affects learning. Two confederates were present - one in the role of experimenter and one rigged to be the learner. Naïve participant believed they were randomly assigned learner and teacher but they were always assigned teacher who tested the learner on their ability to learn word pairs. If the “learner” got the answer wrong, they were issued increasingly strong electric shocks by the teacher. Confederate was instructed to give deliberately wrong answers. Shocks ranged from 15-450 volts.
Describe the aim of Milgram’s experiment
To find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to.
Describe the results and conclusions of Milgram’s study
- All participants went to 300 volts
- 65% continued to maximum level of 450 volts
People are willing to obey orders from an authority figure even if it goes against their moral principles
2 Strengths of Milgram’s study
Ecological and Temporal validity:
Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s study and found almost identical results 46 years later.
Reflected in a real word hospital setting. Holfling et al . (1966) conducted a field study using a naive sample of 22 nurses. Each nurse was telephoned by a doctor they did not know. The doctor told the nurse to administer an excessive dose of an unfamiliar drug – 20g of Astroten. The Astroten box clearly stated that the maximum daily dose was 10mg. 21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed the unethical order
Supporting replication:
French reality TV show “Game of Death”. Participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new game show. They were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants (actors). The findings were consistent with Milgram’s. 80% participants delivered the maximum shock of 460V to an apparently unconscious man.
2 Limitations of Milgram’s study and 2 counters
Lacks internal validity:
Demand characteristics. One of Milgram’s research assistants divided the participants into “doubters” - those who believed the electric shocks were fake, and “believers” who believed they were real. Found “believers” less likely to obey.
COUNTER - Sheridan and King (1972) - A similar study was conducted where real electric shocks given to a puppy. Despite the real shocks and the puppy showing signs of distress. 54% male and 100% female participants delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. Suggests effects in Milgram’s study were genuine as people behaved in the same way with real shocks.
Ethical issues:
Deception - Led participants to believe the allocation of learner and teacher was random. Also led to believe the electric shocks they were issuing were real. Protection from harm - suffered from stress and anxiety as they thought they were issuing potentially fatal shocks to a man with a heart condition. COUNTER - Debriefed participants reassuring them their behaviour was normal and made aware of true aims of the study. Sent follow-up questionnaire and 84% said they were glad to have participated.
