Paper 2 - Milgram on Obedience

Question 1

What was the aim of Milgram’s study ?

Answer 1

To investigate the process of obedience, to demonstrate the power of legitimate authority even when the command requires destructive behaviour. Specifically, whether participants would obey the command of an authority figure to give electric shocks to another person.

Question 2

What did Milgram originally believe about Germans and how was this proved wrong?

Answer 2

He believed that the inhumane obedience of Nazi Germans could be explained by the fact that Germans are more obedient people from other countries/cultures(dispositional factors). He wanted to conduct a pilot study on Americans to see if his procedure works, however, he found that Americans were highly obedient, this gave evidence that obedience is due yo situational Factors rather than dispositional factors.

Question 3

Where did this experiment take place ?

Answer 3

psychology department of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Question 4

How did Milgram recruit his participants ?

Answer 4

He placed an advertisement in a local newspaper and a leaflet in the post, in the advert he stated that the study would be related to memory and each participant will be paid $4.00 and 50cents car fare for an hour of their time. He also stated that the participants must be male between the ages of 20-50 not in high school/college.

Question 5

Who was in Milgram’s final sample ?

Answer 5

40 men 20-50years, not in high school or college, from various occupations and educational backgrounds. They were told that they would be given the $4.50 no matter what happened after they arrived.

Question 6

Who played the role of the experimenter and the learner (victim) ?

Answer 6

The experimenter was played by a 31 year old biology teacher who wore a technicians coat. The learner (victim) was played by a 47 year old accountant who had been trained for the role. They were both accomplices of Milgram.

Question 7

What material/apparatus was used and what was the process of this ?

Answer 7

The shock generator had 30 switches, each labelled from 15-450 volts, going up in increments of 15. They were also labelled with descriptions of the shock, e.g. strong shock.
In order to deceive participants, each participant took a sample shock of 45volts to their wrist to prove that the shock generator was real.
The teacher was told to give a shock to the learner if they got the answer wrong, each time a shocks was given a higher voltage was selected. The teacher also had to read aloud the voltage of the shock to remind themselves of the intensity of the shock.

Question 8

What happened in he beginning of the procedure when the teacher and learner met and was strapped to the machine ?

Answer 8

The true participant met the other ‘participant’ (the accountant), and the roles were given out, the true participant always got the teacher role. The learner and teacher were taken to the laboratory and the learner was strapped into the ‘electrical chair apparatus’ to prevent ‘excessive movement when the shocks are given’. An electrode was strapped to the learners wrist and to the shock generator in the next room. The experimenter advised them that ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage.’

Question 9

How was the learner being tested

Answer 9

The teacher was asked to read allowed a series of word pairs to the learner along with 4 possible answers . If the learner got it wrong the teacher would administer a shock.

Question 10

Describe the feedback from the victim during the study

Answer 10

The learner had a predetermined set of responses, giving 3 wrong answers with every correct answer. The learner gave no protest until 300V when they pounded on the wall but gave no further response, if the teacher turned to the experimenter for advice he was to continue. At 315V the learner pounded on the wall again and gave no further protest.

Question 11

Describe the experimenter feedback section throughout the study

Answer 11

If the teacher turned to the experimenter for advice on whether to continue, the experimenter was trained to give a series of standard ‘prods’ which were always made in a specific sequence, e.g. “you have no other choice”, “you must go on” and “ it causes to permanent tissue damage”

Question 12

Describe the debrief of this study

Answer 12

After the study an interview (debrief) was given to each participant, consisting of the true aims of the study, various open questions and psychological tests. After, procedures occurred to ensure that the participant left the lab in a state of well-being. A friendly reconciliation with the learner happened so that the participant could see that no harm was caused

Question 13

What were the preliminary predictions ?

Answer 13

Milgram described the study to 14 psychology undergraduates and asked them to predict how 100 participants would behave. They predicted that no more than 3% would continue to 450V.

Question 14

What was the quantitative data that was collected from the study ?

Answer 14

12.5% of participants stopped after 300v when the learner pounded on the wall. 65% delivered all 450volt shocks. This meant that 100% were obedient until 300v but that some were not fully obedient as they stopped after that.

Question 15

What was the qualitative data collected from the study ?

Answer 15

Many participants showed nervousness and a large number showed extreme tension: “were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh”.
14 displayed nervous laughter and 3 has “full blown, uncontrollable seizures”.
comments from participants: “i don’t think this is very humane”, “i cant go on with this”, “ill hurt his heart”. Some simply got up and left without saying anything. Those who continued to the end gave sigh of relief, some shook their heads in regret and some remained calm.

Question 16

In the discussion, what did Milgram find about obedient tendencies ?

Answer 16

The strength of obedient tendencies were surprising, despite the fact that:
people are taught from childhood that its wrong to harm another person.
The experimenter had no special powers to enforce his commands.
Disobedience would bring no material loss - they’d still get paid.

Question 17

What were Mailgram’s explanations as to why the participants obeyed ?

Answer 17

The location of a prestigious university provided authority.
Participants assume the experimenter has worthy purpose, so should be followed.
Participants assume that the learner has voluntarily consented to take part.
Sense of obligation by payment.
Participants believe that their roles were chosen by chance.
Participants assume that damage is minimal and temporary, the scientific gain is more important.

Question 18

Evaluate the ethnocentrism in this study.

Answer 18

Only Americans were used in the study there regarded as an individualist culture, they focus on personal needs rather than the needs of a community. Many non-western countries are collectivists, they place the communities needs above their own. Members of such cultures may be more concerned about the victims suffering and be less likely to obey an authority figure.

Question 19

Evaluate the validity in this study.

Answer 19

The issues on demand characteristics and whether the pps believed the shocks were real threatens the meaningfulness of the results and therefore validity. All pps who were given prod 4 disobeyed: “you have no other choice, you must go on” .This challenges the conclusion about obedience because when told they must blindly obey, they didn’t.
The study has high internal validity as the results reflect the aims/purpose of the study.

Question 20

Evaluate the sampling bias in this study.

Answer 20

All participants were male Americans, the sample included men from a range of occupational and educational backgrounds so it was likely to be a representative sample of the target population This means results can be generalised to a wider population (external validity).
However, there may be important gender differences’ which limits the external validity. However Milgram conducted similar study with women and found similar results , although the women experiences higher stress levels.
self-selected sampling may also have caused sampling bias issues as volunteers are more likely to be highly motivated when participating in the study.

Question 21

What type of study is this ?

Answer 21

A controlled observation.

Question 22

What are the strengths of Milgrams research methods and techniques ?

Answer 22

Extraneous variables are highly and easily controlled due to the high control in the lab environment, this reduces distracting factors for participants which may have affected their obedience and therefore the validity and reliability of the study.
There is high internal validity due to the data reflecting the aims of the study.
The tapings and the observers making observations and notes allows for accurate, rich details on the behaviour of participants during the study(such as body language and actions) It means Important behaviour isn’t missed or overlooked which may be vital when considering the obedience of participants.
In the debrief milgram interviewed his participants with several open questions, this provides rich detail from the participants as it allows them to express how they feel without being restricted.
Self selected sampling find committed participants who are less likely to drop out.

Question 23

What are the weaknesses of milgrams research method and techniques ?

Answer 23

Due to the controlled lab environment, participants may produce demand characteristics as they’re aware that they’re being studied and may guess the true aims of the study, for example they might guess that the shocks aren’t real. This means pps adjust their natural behaviour, they may act in a more obedient way - decreasing validity and reliability of the study. This has been supported by Gina Perry (2012) who found pps had expressed suspicions as to why the experimenter lacked concern for the learner.
Low ecological validity as the lab environment is unnatural so the results cannot be generalised beyond the settings.
In the debrief, milgram asked several open questions in an interview, researcher bias may have occurred leading to the researchers expectations influencing the pps answer. Also, leading questions can influence the pps answer as the question suggests the desirable answer the interviewer wants. This deceases the validity of the data collected from the debrief, such as how pps felt the study impacted their mental health.

Question 24

Evaluate the ethical considerations in this study.

Answer 24

Deception: pps we’re told that the study was about his punishment affected learning, and were told that the electric shocks were real. When they learnt the truth this would lead the to not trust psychology which harms psychologist reputation.
Informed consent: pps were deprived from the right to give informed consent as they didn’t know the true aims and procedures of the study, they didn’t know the psychological harm it would cause them.
Protection from harm: pps were exposed to psychological harm due to the negative effects of the actions they were commanded to do.
Debrief: when debriefed a number of pps said they had learnt something very important from taking part and were positive. However, Gina Perry (2012) abridged that mi,gram failed his duty as some pps were debriefed one year later, despite the fact that some left the study thinking they’d killed someone.

Question 25

what relation does this study have to the nature/nurture debate

Answer 25

fits with the nurture side due to the social context - yale university and the obligation (payment).
also the real/imagined or implied presence of others is the authority figure in the lab coat sat next to the pps
therefore, the pps behaviour was due to environmental factors, not biological factors

Question 26

what relation does this study have to the freewill/determinism debate

Answer 26

Determinism – the pps behavior was determined by the social context of a lab environment in yale university and the authority figure wearing a lab coat. However, 12.5% of participants stopped obeying the authority figure after 300v therefore this shows some freewill as they personally decided to disobey despite the social context.

Question 27

how is the research of this study useful

Answer 27

changed our knowledge of why when and how people obey destructive orders
practical applications- changed authority structure in police forces
It explains the holocaust – the Germans were obeying orders from their authority figures. It stops prejudice against German soldiers as research has proven that they are not innately harmful.

Question 28

Does this study relate to psychology as a science

Answer 28

is scientific as the lab setting has high control of EV which means high validity
high reliability due to standardised procedure’s
objective quantitative data