psychology - social influence obedience - situational variables

Question 1

Milgram study of obedience

aim

Answer 1

• to see if people are obedient to people in authority figures

Question 2

what was mailgrams study procedure

Answer 2

• he put up a newspaper advert and people were paid for showing up they were told it was a memory test
• they selected lots on who will be the teacher or the leaner. the lots were made so the confederate would always be the learner and the participant teacher as well as the confederate experimenter
• the learner strapped into a chair in another room and had to answer word questions and teachers were told to shock starting from 15 volts all the way to 450 if they gave wrong answer.
• when teacher looked at experimenter for guidance the experimenter gave 4 prods. 1) please continue, 2) the experiment requires that you continue 3) essential 4) you have no choice.

-

Question 3

milgrams study findings

Answer 3

• no participants stopped under 300 volts
• 65% continued to 450 volts
  Observation showed participant’s shown sings extreme tension many were seen with their hands sweating, three had uncontrollable seizures.

Prior to the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the naïve participants behaviour they estimated no more than 3% would go up to 450. 84% reported felt good and 74% learned something

Question 4

situational variables

what is touch proximity

how much did the obedience rate drop?

what is remote proximity?

how much did obedience rate drop?

Answer 4

One condition required the ‘teacher’ to force the ‘learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate when he refused to answer a question – touch proximity

30%

in another condition, the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions to the teacher by telephone – remote proximity

20.5%

Question 5

location
where was the new location?

how much did obedience rate drop

what was the new uniform

how much did obedience rate drop?

Answer 5

from 65% to 47.5%

from 65% to 20%

Question 6

strength - research support for influential situational variables

stegenth - culturally replicated

strength - control over variables.

Answer 6

Bickman looked into effect of authority on obedience confederate dressed in milkman jacket tie the confederate asked passes by for coins for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey security guard then the confederate in tie./jacket.

Miranda at el found over 40% of obedience in spanish students. Milgram’s findings was not unlimited. However smith and bond note many replications took place in weston societies not different to uk.

Milgram systematically allowed one variable at a time to test effect on obedience other variables kept constant as it was replicated with over 1000 participants.

Question 7

limitation for situational variable’s.

• lack of internal validity
• may provide obedience alibi

Answer 7

omie and holland suggest participants in mailgram’s variations was more likely to know the experiment was fake because of extra manipulation. In one variation experimenter left and was replaced.

Question 8

limiation of milgrams study lacked internal valdity. orne/halland vs king and sherdian

ethical - deception

Answer 8

• orne and holland suggest the participants guessed the electric shocks were fake so Milgram’s testing was not what he intended it to be which was obedience. However Sheridan and king used research from when they got a puppy to be electrocuted 54% of male and 100% of females thought they gave fatal shocks. So obedience in milgram’s study might be genuine,

Question 9

stegenth - good external valdity hopping at el

research suppprt

Answer 9

milgram argued that the lab based relationship between participant and experiment reflected wider authority relationship. Hopping at al found that levels of obedience in hospitals ward was unjustified for by doctors 21 out of 22.

In a french documentary on a game show participants gave fake shocks to who the leader decides. 80% gave the max 450 shock.