SOCIAL AREA: Milgram

Question 1

M: Procedure

Answer 1

1. Participants given role of teacher in a test, supposedly on memory and learning
2. Watched the other p (an actor) get strapped to a chair and explained he had a heart condition. Gave p a trial shock.
3. Carried out memory test on actor
4. For each wrong answer, a higher voltage of electric shock was administered (supposedly)
5. When p became uneasy, experimenter gave prods
6. Test continued until 450V or when p refused to go on. Learner banged on wall at 315V
7. Participant debriefed

Question 2

M: Prods

Answer 2

‘Please continue’
‘The experiment requires you to continue’
‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
‘You have no other choice but to continue’

Question 3

M: Sampling method

Answer 3

Self selecting sample - asked for participants in a newspaper

Question 4

M: Pros and cons of sampling method

Answer 4

+ easy to gather ps with little effort
+ already have their consent
- expensive

Question 5

M: Sample

Answer 5

Males
Variety of jobs
From New Haven

Question 6

M: Pros and cons of sample

Answer 6

+ different lifestyles
+ androcentric
- only from New Haven
- only males - androcentric

Question 7

M: Research Method

Answer 7

Observation

No IV or DV

Question 8

M: Controls

Answer 8

Responses to different voltages
The experimenter
The learner 
Participant was always the teacher
Learner always strapped to chair
Sample shock of 45V to teacher

Question 9

M: Aims/Hypotheses

Answer 9

To investigate what level of obedience participants would go to when asked to deliver electric shocks to someone by a legitimate authority figure

Question 10

M: Background

Answer 10

Why did German officers kill Jews?
Is blind obedience more likely with a legitimate authority figure?
Why did war criminals claim they were ‘only obeying orders’?
Why did nobody act independently and disobey?

Question 11

M: Quantitative results

Answer 11

65% went to 450V
100% went to 300V because experimenter told them to
26 obedient
14 disobedient

Question 12

M: Qualitative results

Answer 12

‘Wanted to stop’ but experimenter wouldn’t let them
Visible signs of extreme stress - sweating, groaning, dig fingers into arms, 14 showed nervous laughter, 3 had full blown seizures
‘Not humane’, ‘I can’t do that to a man’, ‘I can’t go on with this’
Interviewed and debriefed them

Question 13

M: Internal Reliability

Answer 13

Experienced same situation due to controls

Question 14

M: External reliability

Answer 14

65% got the same result - consistent

Question 15

M: Internal Validity

Answer 15

Yes because 65% went to 450V but 35% were disobedient due to personality variables

Question 16

M: Explanation of findings

Answer 16

Placed in a situation where they had to respond to two people. No time to reflect
Conflict between morals

Question 17

M: Conclusion

Answer 17

Situation produced strong tendencies to obey a legitimate authority figure
Situation caused physical and emotional strain

Question 18

M: External Validity

Answer 18

Low but only 40 men from New Haven and not military trained like SS officers

Question 19

M: Ecological External Validity

Answer 19

Low because scenario was not true to life. Only authority figure telling participants what to do was true to life i.e, police, teachers, in the work place

Question 20

M: Upheld ethical guidelines

Answer 20

Debriefing - told true aim after experiment

Question 21

M: Ethnocentric

Answer 21

Yes - results would be very similar if people from different cultures or countries took part

Question 22

M: Broken Ethical Guidelines

Answer 22

Confidentiality - permission not given to be in tapes
Withdrawal- some weren’t aware they could withdraw
Protection from harm - multiple participants exp. psychological harm, 3 had ‘uncontrollable’ seizures
Informed consent - didn’t know the aim of the procedure - consent not valid
Deception - deceived three times (study was about learning, teacher and learner role fixed, learner not electrocuted)