Social Area - Milgram

Question 1

What is the background to Milgram’s study?

Answer 1

He was interested in what made so many people kill the Jewish people in command of Nazi Germany

Question 2

What did the participants think they were taking part in and what was the actual study about?

Answer 2

Participants thought they were taking part in a study which investigated the effects of punishment on memory. However, Milgram was interested in the point at which participants refused to conduct electric shocks

Question 3

Describe the participants:

Answer 3

Location: New Haven 
Total number: 40 
Age: 20-50 
Sampling method: self-selected through newspaper advertisement and mail 
Reward: $4.50 for simply coming to lab

Question 4

Where was the study conducted?

Answer 4

Yale University

Question 5

What was the role of the lab experimenter and the victim?

Answer 5

The lab experimenter remained stern throughout the experiment.
The victims was found to be mild-mannered and likeable

Question 6

How was the ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ role selected?

Answer 6

Used a rigged system where the naive participant and victim drew slips out of a hat - the naive ppt always ended up as the ‘teacher’

Question 7

Describe the learning task:

Answer 7

A word-pair task where teachers read a series of word pairs and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms. The learner communicated his answer by pressing one of four switches which lit up in an answer-box

Question 8

Describe the shock generator:

Answer 8

Consisted of 30 switches ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts. There was an increment of 15V

Question 9

What we’re the verbal designations on the shock generator?

Answer 9

Slight shock 
Moderate shock 
Strong shock 
Very strong shock 
Intense shock 
Extreme intensity shock 
Danger: severe shock 
XXX

Question 10

What did the experimenter declare in response to a question by the ‘learner’ at the start of the procedure?

Answer 10

‘Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’

Question 11

Describe the sample shock:

Answer 11

Each naive ppt ‘teacher’ was given a sample shock of 45V in their wrist. This was done to convince the ppt of the authenticity of the generator

Question 12

Describe the shock instructions:

Answer 12

Each time the learner gave a wrong answer, teachers must announce the voltage, administer a shock and move one level up

Question 13

Describe the feedback from victim:

Answer 13

Victims answers were predetermined - 3 wrong answers to 1 correct answer
At 300V kicked all
At 315V kicked wall again
After that, no feedback at all
Teachers were instructed to wait 5-10 seconds before treating absence of response as a wrong answer and so administer a shock

Question 14

Describe the experimenter feedback:

Answer 14

Experimenter used ‘prods’

1. Please continue
2. The experiment requires that you continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must continue

Question 15

What was the dependent measure?

Answer 15

All ppts who did not continue to 450V were deemed as ‘defiant’ and ‘obedient’ ppts were those who complied and administered all shocks

Question 16

Describe the interview and dehoax:

Answer 16

Ppts were interviewed after experiment and effort was made to reduce tension to ensure ppts left the lab in a state of well-being

Question 17

What we’re the predicted results?

Answer 17

14 final year students at Yale predicted that only a small number of ppts would go to the end of the shock series

Question 18

What we’re the actual results of the experiment?

Answer 18

No one broke off from the experiment before 300V

26 ppts went up to 450V

Question 19

What was observed of the ppts administering shocks?

Answer 19

Sweating 
Trembling 
Biting lips 
Digging nails into flesh 
Stuttering

Question 20

What was observed in 14 of the participants?

Answer 20

Nervous laughter and smiling

Question 21

What was observed in 3 of the participants?

Answer 21

Uncontrollable seizures

Question 22

What was the first conclusion made by Milgram?

Answer 22

The situation produced extremely strong tendencies to obey

Question 23

What was the second conclusion made by Milgram?

Answer 23

The situation generates extraordinary tension and emotions strain

Question 24

What features of the experiment may explain the conclusion that the situation produced strong tendencies to obey?

Answer 24

1. Took place in Yale - high reputation
2. Participants were payed which increases obligation to help experimenter
3. Participants were under the impression that learner and teacher had same possibility of being the learner and so could not complain
4. As long as learner continued to provide answers it could be suggested that they were still willing to ‘play the game’
5. Participants were assured that despite the shocks being painful, there was no permanent damage

Question 25

What features of the experiment may explain the conclusion that the situation generates extraordinary tension and emotional strain?

Answer 25

1. Participants were asked to respond to competing demands of experimenter and victim
2. The demands of experimenter (scientific knowledge) and victim ( relief from physical suffering) were different
3. The experiment gave the participant little time to reflect
4. There was a disposition not to harm other people and the tendency to obey those perceived as a legitimate authority

Question 26

Research method:

Answer 26

Experiment because use of DV and controls

DV = defiant/obedient ppts 
Controls = same shock generator, same people played ‘learner’ and ‘experimenter’ and the ‘learner’s’ response was the same each time 

no use of IV bur carried out a series of variation of his original study using only females and conducting it in an office rather than Yale

Question 27

Outline an issues with classing Milgram study as an experiment:

Answer 27

His first study had no independent variable and it became the baseline control condition - he carried out variations of his original study

Question 28

Outline an example of the quantitative data used in the study and a benefit of this:

Answer 28

Example: percentage of people administering electric shocks to the learner

Benefit: allows to compare from one variation of the study to another

Question 29

Give an example of the qualitative data in the study and outline a benefit of this:

Answer 29

Example: sweating and trembling

Benefit: reveals that the ‘teachers’ followed instructions but did so without pleasure and were in great emotional discomfort

Question 30

Outline the problems with ethics in this study:

Answer 30

1. Ppts were deceived
2. Ppts were unable to give informed consent
3. Ppts were harmed ‘uncontrollable seizures’

Question 31

State the ethical guidelines that were followed:

Answer 31

1. Ppts consented to take part
2. No names of individuals were reported
3. Ppts given a debrief

Question 32

Explain how the study has high face validity:

Answer 32

The study appears to measure what it aimed to - obedience

Question 33

What is an argument against the face validity of the study?

Answer 33

It is not obvious that obedience was due to authority. There could be other factors such as levels of moral courage or levels of empathy.

Question 34

Why is this study low in ecological validity?

Answer 34

We wouldn’t normally be instructed to generate electric shocks because a wrong answer is given

Question 35

How is this study low in ecological validity relating to the background of the study (Nazi Germany)

Answer 35

1. (Nazi) people killed in groups rather than individually
2. (Nazi) people killed with gas rather than electric shocks
3. (Milgram) ppts did not fear negative consequences if disobedient
4. (Milgram) no one was actually killed

Question 36

How is the study high in ecological validity relating to the background (Nazi Germany)

Answer 36

1. Explicitly instructions were given (to cause suffering)
2. Payment was given to those carrying out the acts
3. Those being harmed were invisible to those harming them
4. Those carrying out the acts were convinced that their actions were serving some bigger, socially worthwhile purpose