Obedience study Milgram

Question 1

Aims of Milgram’s (1963) study?
What was the aim Milgram deceived his Pt’s with?

Answer 1

• Why did a high proportion of Germans obey Hitlers orders to murder over 6 million Jews & other social groups during WW2?
• Milgram believed a possible explanation was that Germans were naturally more obedient (dispositional explanation of obedience)
• Pt’s thought the study was about the effects of punishment on memory

Question 2

Procedure of Milgram’s study?

Answer 2

• 40 male volunteers at Yale University
• Authority figure ordered Pt’s to deliver dangerous electrical shocks to another person
• When the volunteers arrived they were introduced to another Pt (confederate)
• drew lots either a teacher (always Pt) & learner (always confederate) - rigged draws
• Experimenter (always in lab coat)
• Learner asked to learn word pairs
• They were instructed to shock the confederate if they got the word pairs wrong; if they refused they were pressured to do it anyway
• The shocks were fake; after so many shocks the confederate stopped making ‘painful’ noises
• Volts increased by 15 each time

Question 3

Results of Milgram study?

Answer 3

• Qualitative data: participants looked uncomfortable, under stress, sweaty, had seizures, nervous laughter & wanted to leave, hesitant in administering shocks
• Quantitative data:
• 100% gave 300 volts
• 65% gave the maximum 450 volts
• 35% never obeyed

Question 4

Conclusion of Milgram study?

Answer 4

• Pt’s would obey orders of an authority figure as Pt’s gave electrical shocks to a learner when told to by the authority figure

Question 5

AO3 Milgram study
Low generalisability?

Answer 5

P - Issue with Milgram is low generalisability to target population
E - Milgram used 40 American men (age 20-50), limited sample in terms of representation
E - Findings may have been different if female Pt’s were involved/males from different ages/locations
L - Shows study is limited in its applicability to wider populations - cannot be generalised

Question 6

AO3 Milgram study
High reliability?

Answer 6

P - Milgram’s study can be argued to have high reliability
E - As the study was a lab experiment with standardised procedures, study can be replicated
E - e.g. Volt increases of 15 each time, experimenter wore a lab coat
L - Enables findings to be questioned & the study to be tested for consistency

Question 7

AO3 Milgram study
Practical applications?

Answer 7

P - Practical applications of the Milgram study
E - people tend to obey orders from people if they recognise their authority as morally right/legally predicated
- Response to legitimate authority is learned through the military, schools, family & workplace
E - In everyday situations like soldiers obeying order from their commanding officers or people obeying a police officers demands in public
L - Suggests Milgram study is useful when observing behaviours in society & understanding obedience widely

Question 8

AO3 Milgram study
Low ecological validity?
Orne & Holland (1968)
Mundane realism

Answer 8

P - Milgram’s study has low ecological validity
E - Because study took place in a lab environment (artificial setting) we must be careful generalising findings
- Task was also artificial as rarely day to day life involves giving strangers electrical shocks
E - Orne & Holland (1968) argue the study isn’t obedience study
- Pt’s didn’t believe they were shocking someone & situation wasn’t realistic, going along with experimenter - shows demand characteristics
- When Milgram debriefed Pt’s they believed situation was real, supported by stress experienced
- Shows Mundane realism
L - Despite this overall this shows its difficult to generalise Milgram’s research universally

Question 9

What does changing variables in Milgram show?

Answer 9

• Changing variables aims to see if the rates of obedience change
• Allows psychologists to identify factors that affect obedience

Question 10

What are the 4 variables changed in Milgram’s study?

Answer 10

1. Loss of Uniform
2. Location
3. Proximity & close proximity
4. Absent experimenter

Question 11

Describe Loss of uniform?
What was the level of obedience?
Why was this?
Research support Bickman?

Answer 11

• Experimenter looked like a normal person (without a lab coat)
• 20%
• Visible loss of authority from losing uniform
• Bickman:
• 30% obedience rate (civilian)
• 76% obedience rate (uniform)

Question 12

Describe Location?
What was the level of obedience?
Why was this?

Answer 12

• Experiment moved from Yale to a rundown office block in Bridgeport
• 47.5%
• Location adds to the legitimacy of an authority figure

Question 13

Describe Proximity & close proximity?
What was the level of obedience?
Why was this?

Answer 13

• Learner moved into same room as teacher
• 30%
• Pt’s unable to separate themselves from consequences of their actions

Experimenter left the room & gave instructions by telephone
- 20.5%
- Absence of experimenter reduced authority & legitimacy

Question 14

Describe Absent experimenter (remote authority)?
Research support Hopling (1966)?
Research against Rank & Johnson (1977)?

Answer 14

• Experimenter was remotely giving orders
• Hopling (1966):
• Conducted an experiment with 22 nurses receiving calls from someone claiming to be ‘Dr Smith’
• Dr Smith asked them to administer 20mg of a drug, despite maximum drug dose is 10mg
• Nurses obeyed
• Rank & Johnson (1977):
• Repeated Hopling’s experiment using Valium as the drug
• Doctor on the phone instructed nurses to administer the dose at 3x recommended dose
• After the nurses consulted with other nurses 2/18 nurses obeyed