SI5. Factors Affecting Obedience (Milgram)

Question 1

Milgram’s Study (1963)

Answer 1

• 40 randomly selected male volunteers
• Aim: observe obedience of a destructive authority figure when told to had, another person
• participant = ‘teacher’, confederate = ‘learner’, experimenter = ‘encourager’; P had to administer electric shock to confederate (even if no answer); volts began at 15V, going up to 450V, where 300V was marked lethal - in 15V intervals
• experimenter gave ‘prods’ if participant refused to administer shock, increasing in ‘demandingness’ with each refusal to shock - same 4 prods used each time

Question 2

Milgram’s Study Findings

Answer 2

• all P’s went to 300V
• 65% went to 450%
• No P’s stopped below 300V, yet 12.5% stopped at 300V
• shows vast majority willing to give lethal shock to confederate

Question 3

Factors Affecting Obedience

Answer 3

• Proximity (62.5% obeyed when Ex. in same room)(40% Ex. in seperate room)
• Location (‘prestige’ of Stanford institution demands obedience; also increases trust)
• Uniform (uniform = higher status/legitimacy; obedience higher in lab coat than clothes)

Question 4

+ Eval: Real-Life Application

Answer 4

• provides explanation for obedience; so may reduce future obedience to destructive authority
• e.g. Nazi soldiers carried out Hitler’s orders, despite Hitler’s aims only being supported by a minority
• understanding obedience is useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours

Question 5

+ Eval: External Validity

Answer 5

• separate study covertly observed behaviours of doctors and nurses in a natural environment (hospital)
• found that 95% of nurses obeyed a doctor (confederate) over the phone when told to increase a patients dose to double what is advised on the bottle
• suggests ‘everyday’ individuals still obey destructive authority figures

Question 6

• Eval: Psychological Harm

Answer 6

• P’s showed signs of psychological and physiological distress (trembling, sweating, nervous laughter)