Obedience- Milgrams studies

Question 1

What is obedience?

Answer 1

A type of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from a perceived authoritative figure

Question 2

What study investigated obedience?

Answer 2

Milgram (1963)

Question 3

What sample did Milgram use?

Answer 3

40 male volunteers

Question 4

Describe the procedure of Milgram’s study

Answer 4

x Recruited 40 males through adverts and flyers (told study was on how punishment affects learning)
x 2 confederates- one the experimenter (issued orders to participants) and other was rigged to be the ‘learner
x Naïve participant was always the ‘teacher’- tested learner on ability to learn word pairs. If got answer wrong was issued increasingly strong electric shocks. Confederate was instructed to deliberately give wrong answer
x Shocks ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts
x Naïve participants believed these shocks were real when they were not.

Question 5

Describe the results of Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 5

x All participants went to 300 volts
x 65% continued to maximum level of 450 volts

Question 6

what are the two strengths of Milgram’s obedience study?

Answer 6

Temporal validity- Blass (1999) he carried ou a statistical analysis of obedience studies between 1961 and 1985. he found there was no more or less obedience throughout the years. Burger (2009) had almost identical results to Milgram.
Supporting replication- The game of death a french tv show (2010) hd ptpts believing they were part of a game show and they copied Milgram’s study. They found that 80% gave the full shock of 450v, consistent with Milgram’s research.

Question 7

What are the two limitations of Milgram’s obedience study?

Answer 7

Lacks internal validity- People are more likely to distrust experimenters now as the true purpose of the study may be hidden. Perry (2013) discovered that many of Milgram’s ptpts were sceptical if the shocks were real. Milgram’s assistant categorised the ptpts into believers and doubters. they found that believers were less likely to obey.
counter- another study where the shocks were real but given to a dog found that 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock t the dog. showing that the effects in Milgram’s study was genuine because people acted the same when the shocks were real.
Ethical issues- ptpts were deceived. 1. they thought the allocation of learner and teacher was randomly allocated 2. they thought the shocks were real. They also experienced a breach in protection from harm as they suffered from stress, anxiety as they delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
counter- Milgram did debrief ptpts and assured them their behaviour was completely normal and they were told the actual aim of the study. 84% of ptpts said they were glad they participated.

Question 8

What are situational variables?

Answer 8

external factors which influence levels of obedience

Question 9

What are the three situational variables?

Answer 9

1. Proximity
2. Location
3. Uniform

Question 10

What are the three variations for proximity Milgram carried out?

Answer 10

1. teacher and learner in the same room
2. Teacher forced learners hand onto shock plate
3. Experimenter gave orders over the phone

Question 11

What was the variation for location Milgram carried out?

Answer 11

study was conducted in a run down lab instead of yale univeristy

Question 12

What was the variation for uniform Milgram carried out?

Answer 12

Role of experimenter was taken over by and ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat

Question 13

What was the outcome of the proximity variables?

Answer 13

1. teacher and learner in the same room- obedience rate dropped to 40%
2. teacher forced learners hand onto shock plate- obedience dropped to 30%
3. Experimenter leaves and gives orders over the phone- obedience dropped to 20.5%

Question 14

What was the outcome of the location variables?

Answer 14

Obedience dropped to 47.5%

Question 15

What was the outcome of the uniform variables?

Answer 15

Obedience dropped to 20%

Question 16

What are the two limitations of situational variables?

Answer 16

Lacks internal validity- It is even more likely that participants would work out the procedure is faked in Milgram’s variations because of the extra manipulation.
E.g. When the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’ even Milgram recognised that the situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth. This is a limitation of Milgram’s original study because it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly (responded to demand characteristics).

The ‘obedience alibi’:
Milgram concluded that the proximity of experimenter, teacher and learner, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within the situation that influence obedience.
Mandel (1998)- argued that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour. In his view it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control.

Question 17

What are the two strengths of situational variables?

Answer 17

Research support for the power of uniform- Research has shown that uniforms can have a powerful impact on obedience. They convey power and authority, which can become symbolised in the uniform itself.
Bushman (1988)- carried out a study where a female researcher, dressed either in a ‘police-style’ uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar, stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter.
When she was in the uniform 72% of the people obeyed, whereas obedience rates were much lower when she was dressed as a business executive (48%) or as a beggar (52%). When interviewed after people claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority.

Cross- cultural replications- Both Milgram’s original study and his variations have been replicated in other cultures.
Meeusen Raajimakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. They also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity- when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased.
Counter- Researchers have argued most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies (Spain, Australia), which are culturally not that different from the USA (they may have similar notions about the role of authority). Only identified two replications that took place in India and Jordan- both culturally quite different from the USA.
It would be premature to conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people across all cultures.

Question 18

What is the overall conclusion from the findings of Milgram’s study?

Answer 18

People are willing to obey orders from an authoritative figure even if it goes against moral principles