Obedience & work of Milgram Flashcards
what are the aims of Milgram’s study?
to test the Germans are different hypothesis - claiming Germans are highly obedient
to see if peopled would obey even when causing harm
how many pps in Milgram’s study?
40 American males
what were they told Milgram’s study was about?
the effects of punishment on learning & they would randomly be either teacher or learner but Mr Wallace (confed) was always learner
what was the method for Milgram’s study?
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
what happened at each stage of shocks in Milgrams study?
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
what are the findings of Milgram’s study?
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
what are the conclusions of Milgram’s study?
the Germans are different hypothesis is clearly false - American men had high levels of obedience
what are the strengths of Milgram’s study?
the Miglram paradigm - he established the basic method for studying obedience adopted by subsequent researchers
debriefed pps after experiment
what are the limitations of Milgram’s study?
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
arguments for & against psychological harm in Milgram’s study
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
arguments for & against deception/informed consent
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
arguments for & against right to withdraw
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
arguments for & against inducement to take part
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
what was wrong with the internal validity of Milgram’s study?
Orne & Holland said lack of internal validity as believed pp’s did the shocks because they knew they weren’t real
what was wrong with the external validity of Milgram’s study?
results can’t be generalised due to androcentrism and cultural bias
what is Sheridan & King’s research on androcentrism?
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
what is Meeus & Raaijimaker’s research on cultural bias in Milgram’s study?
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
what is the aim of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?
to develop a variation of Milgram’s procedures allowing comparison with the original investigation while protecting the well-being of pps
what is the procedure of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?
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
what are the findings of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?
obedience rate of 70% with no difference between male & female obedience rates
what is the conclusion of Burger’s replicating Milgram study?
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
evaluate Burger’s replicating Milgram study
different procedures used by Milgram & Burger don’t allow a clear comparison of results
what is the procedure for Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship?
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
what are the findings for Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship?
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
what are the conclusions for Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship?
the power & authority of doctors was a greater influence on the nurses behaviour than basic hospital rules
evaluate Hofling et al’s study on nurse-physician relationship
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
