Obedience & work of Milgram

Question 1

what are the aims of Milgram’s study?

Answer 1

to test the Germans are different hypothesis - claiming Germans are highly obedient
to see if peopled would obey even when causing harm

Question 2

how many pps in Milgram’s study?

Answer 2

40 American males

Question 3

what were they told Milgram’s study was about?

Answer 3

the effects of punishment on learning & they would randomly be either teacher or learner but Mr Wallace (confed) was always learner

Question 4

what was the method for Milgram’s study?

Answer 4

teacher was told to give electric shocks to Mr Wallace - went up to 450 volts - read out series of paired-associate word tasks & were told to shock if they got it wrong, increasing the level of shock

Question 5

what happened at each stage of shocks in Milgrams study?

Answer 5

at 150 volts - learner began to protest & demanded to be released - becoming more insistent - at 300 volts he refused to answer anymore qs, at 315 volts he screamed & 330 volts said nothing
teacher encouraged by verbal prods - told to keep shocking

Question 6

what are the findings of Milgram’s study?

Answer 6

quantitative results - obedience rate was 62.5%
100% of pps continued up to at least 300 volts
qualitative results - pps showed distress, such as, twitching, sweating or giggling nervously, 3 had uncontrollable seizures

Question 7

what are the conclusions of Milgram’s study?

Answer 7

the Germans are different hypothesis is clearly false - American men had high levels of obedience

Question 8

what are the strengths of Milgram’s study?

Answer 8

the Miglram paradigm - he established the basic method for studying obedience adopted by subsequent researchers
debriefed pps after experiment

Question 9

what are the limitations of Milgram’s study?

Answer 9

lack ecological validity - tested in laboratory which is different to real-life situations of obedience
androcentric - biased used only men - can’t generalise to women
unethical - psychological harm - seizures etc
deception

Question 10

arguments for & against psychological harm in Milgram’s study

Answer 10

for - exposed pp’s to severe stress
against - only 2 % had any regrets about being involved & 74% thought they learned something useful about themselves - thorough debrief occurred

Question 11

arguments for & against deception/informed consent

Answer 11

for - he said the study was concerned with memory & learning - only after agreed to take part, were the electric shocks mentioned
against - debriefed his pp’s

Question 12

arguments for & against right to withdraw

Answer 12

for - no explicit right to withdraw was given before the study started & were met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue
against - pps did have the right to withdraw as 35% exercised this option & refused to continue

Question 13

arguments for & against inducement to take part

Answer 13

for - the ad for the study said they were to receive money for the experiment so this may have led them to continue the study to get money
against - the ad stated that monies would be paid on arrival at the lab & no pp ever claimed they thought they had to obey to get paid

Question 14

what was wrong with the internal validity of Milgram’s study?

Answer 14

Orne & Holland said lack of internal validity as believed pp’s did the shocks because they knew they weren’t real

Question 15

what was wrong with the external validity of Milgram’s study?

Answer 15

results can’t be generalised due to androcentrism and cultural bias

Question 16

what is Sheridan & King’s research on androcentrism?

Answer 16

male & female pps to give real electric shocks to a puppy every time it responded to a command incorrectly - 54% of males & 100% of females obeyed up to 450 volts

Question 17

what is Meeus & Raaijimaker’s research on cultural bias in Milgram’s study?

Answer 17

found highest recorded obedience level with Milgram paradigm of 90% in Spanish pp’s while Kilham & Mann found the lowest cultural obedience rate of 28% in Australians

Question 18

what is the aim of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?

Answer 18

to develop a variation of Milgram’s procedures allowing comparison with the original investigation while protecting the well-being of pps

Question 19

what is the procedure of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?

Answer 19

mostly replicated Milgram’s study but:
no one with knowledge of his study used
the max shock was 150 volts
no one with history of mental problems or stress reactions used
told 3 times they could withdraw at any time
experiment was clinical psychologist who could stop at any signs of stress

Question 20

what are the findings of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?

Answer 20

obedience rate of 70% with no difference between male & female obedience rates

Question 21

what is the conclusion of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?

Answer 21

its possible to replicate Milgram’s study in a non-harmful way
obedience rates haven’t changed massively in the 50ish years since the study

Question 22

evaluate Burger’s replicating Milgram study

Answer 22

different procedures used by Milgram & Burger don’t allow a clear comparison of results

Question 23

what is the procedure for Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship?

Answer 23

confed - Dr Smith instructed 22 nurses by phone to give his patient Mr Jones 20 mg of unfamiliar drug - Astrofen - he was in a hurry & would sign the authorisation form later on - the label on the box said the max daily dose was 10 mg

Question 24

what are the findings for Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship?

Answer 24

21 obeyed without hesitation - control group of 22 nurses were asked what they would have done in the situation & 21 said they wouldn’t have obeyed without authorisation

Question 25

what are the conclusions for Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship?

Answer 25

the power & authority of doctors was a greater influence on the nurses behaviour than basic hospital rules

Question 26

evaluate Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship

Answer 26

suggests that nurses & institutional staff should have special training in following rules rather than orders from authority figures
Rank & Jacobsen found when nurses were using a familiar drug & were allowed to speak to their peers only 2/18 nurses obeyed - suggests Hofling et al’s study may have not had external validity