social Flashcards
milgram procedure orginal
Procedure
40 white male participants aged 20-50.
Told to shock a learner every time he answered wrong.
Started at 15V and increased by 15V to 450V.
4 prods given if learner resisted; ‘must continue’, ‘required for u to continue’.
Results: 100% shocked to 300V
65% shocked to 450V.
milgram strength and weakness
Strength
Highly controlled - same voltage range, verbal prods, shock machine, confederate.
Establishes a cause-effect relationship between the authority figure and obedience levels.
Weakness
Low population validity - aged 20-50 white males.
Findings on obedience may not be applicable to other cultures, ages, or gender - cannot represent wider population.
milgram variation 7
7 - to investigate if proximity of authority affects obedience.
22.5% obeyed.
STRENGTH
Sedikikes and Jackson - further away, less likely to obey.
Can be applied to other real life situations.
WEAKNESS
is that there is low mundane realism unlike everyday examples of obedience.
milgram variation 10
10 - to investigate if location affects obedience.
48% obeyed.
STRENGTH
Highly controlled - same prods, confederate, voltage range.
Can establish cause-effect relationship between location and obedience levels.
WEAKNESS
is that there is low mundane realism unlike everyday examples of obedience.
milgram variation 13
13 - to investigate if legitimacy affects obedience.
20% obeyed.
STRENGTH
Highly controlled - same confederate and ordinary man.
Cause-effect relationship between decreased authority and decreased obedience.
WEAKNESS
Stolen authority from the researcher who entered with.
Low internal validity
BURGER procedure
29 men, 41 women aged 20-81
Max voltage was 150V.
Were screened before - psych course and mental health issues.
Told multiple times verbally and writing they could leave.
Signed form of consent.
Results: 70% prepared to go over 300V (Milgram 82.5%)
BURGER s and w
Strength
High internal validity - got rid of psych students.
Results were because the authority figure told to shock rather than because they knew aim of study.
Weakness
Only went to 150V.
Elms argued participants stopped before showing any emotional distress or internal conflict.
Unable to use findings of obedience as participants did not reach the point they felt moral strain.
AGENCY THEORY
Autonomous state - act on free will, take responsibility.
Agentic state - act on orders, displace responsibility.
Agentic shift - consider authority figure legit; shift.
Moral strain - goes against morals; causes distress.
Binding factors - things that tie to situation.
AGENCY THEORY s and w
Strength
Milgram’s study - ordered to shock confederate if answered wrong.
When interviewed after, participants displaced responsibility on authority figure
Weakness
Rank and Jacobsen study - 16 out of 18 refused to administer a non lethal dose of Valium when being ordered to by physician.
Factors like high self esteem and knowledge of drug.
Didn’t obey the authority figure and undergo agentic shift.
SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY procedure
Procedure
Strength - how legit is the authority figure (wealth, age, status).
Immediacy - proximity or how long ago did they give order.
Number of sources - group together = more likely to obey
Diminishing returns - more sources = less likely to obey over time.
Division of impact - more targets = less likely to obey.
social impact s and w
Strength
Sedikikes and Jackson.
Zoo uniform - 58% obeyed.
Normal clothes - 35% obeyed.
Shows source strength affected obedience rates.
Weakness
Hofling et al.
21 out of 22 obeyed orders to overdose patient given to them via phone by a doctor.
Doesn’t support as immediacy was low (over phone) but still obeyed.
factors affecting obedience
authoritarian personality- proximity gender locus of control legitimate culture
realistic conflict theor procedure
Inter house competition -creating competition between the groups
Negative interdependence
-competing for 1 goal that can only be won by 1 group (conflict of interests)
Limited resources - can be land or something like social status
Positive interdependence- working together to achieve a goal
Superoordinate goal- goal that can only be achieved by working together
RCT s w
Strength
Sherif study supports this as the boys showed prejudice when being involvedin competition. When playing tug of war (negative interdependence. They showed prejudice as they called each other stinkers this means thatthey showed prejudice as there was competition
Weakness
Tajfel study- as the groups were randomise- ther boys showed prejudice by distributing points in a way that they accepted a small amount of points so that the other groups would get even less
No competition was needed for th groups to show prejudice
sherif
Procedure
20 white, protestant boys 11-12 year olds.
Stage 1 - ingroups & outgroups, rattlers and eagles, taught to swim, fix a pipe.
Stage 2 - conflict created - tug of war, limited pocket knives.
Stage 3 - superordinate goal, tug of war against a truck.
