social influence L1-7

Question 1

what is conformity

Answer 1

change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

Question 2

what is majority influence

Answer 2

Most common type of conformity; when individual or small group is influenced by a larger or more dominant group

Question 3

3 types of conformity

Answer 3

Kelman (1958) came up with

compliance = individuals change their behaviour and views / attitudes so they are in line w majority
No change to private views, more temporary and superficial form of conformity

internalisation= individuals change / adjust their behaviour in public in line w majority, but then evaluate their behaviours and beliefs and views based on others views, finds that majority is actually right.
Changes view privately too
More permanent and deep form of conformity

identification
Moderate type of conformity
Comform to opinions of group because we feel we are similar to the group and change our views to become part of it
Identify also with people we look up to or admire
May agree public disagree private
Eg being veg because friends are and you do like veg food but still like meat too

Question 4

What is isi?

Answer 4

informational social influence
Person conforms as they are unsure of what the correct thing to do is, so look to others for information they dont have
Drive is most often the need to be right
If majority are correct, conformer will be too, if not, at least wont stand out

Most likely : ambiguous, more complex, crisis, believe others to be expert
Lead to internalisation, accept view public + private

Question 5

What is NSI?

Answer 5

Normative social influence
All about norms, what is expected behaviour for social group
Norms regulate behaviour of a group, tend to pay attention
We have fundamental meed to be liked, not be ridiculed, be accepted
Avoid any behaviour sticking us out, leading us to copy behaviour others to fit in
Following norms to fit in and be accepted in the group

More likely situations = strangers, may be concerned about rejection
NSI more pronounced in stressful situations, greater need social support
NSI lead to compliance

Question 6

Strengths of NSI and ISI

Answer 6

both have research support
ISI= lucas et al (2006) asked students answer hard and easy math problems, found that conformity occurred more in hard qs, esp for students feeling they are bad at maths, showing isi happens more in ambiguous or complex situations
NSI= asch (1951) many participants went along with wrong answer because other people did, and feared rejection so picked wrong answer, answers were not ambiguous or difficult but people still conform due to NSI

Question 7

Weaknesses of NSI and ISI

Answer 7

• indidvidual diff between NSI and ISI**
  studies shown not every individual shows NSI, eg. Less concerned about being liked, not as affected as NSI
  however, nAffiliators (people who do care about being liked), have greater need for affiliation, and having relationships w people, are more likely to conform
  Mcghee and Teevan (1967), found students w more need for affiliation are more likely to conform, Naffiliators may conform, those who arent wont
  Suggests NSI explanation lacks population validity, not works for everyone

isi and nsi work together to explain conformity than separately
Rather than seeing as two diff explanations, truth is that both may be involved
eg. Aschs experiments, conformity reduced when another participant disagrees with majority (dissenting participant), and dissenter may reduce effect of nsi, by providing social support, reduce power of isi, participant now has alternative source of information from dissenter
Shows not always clear whether NSI or ISI

Many supporting studies for nsi and isi are lab experiments
Lack ecological validity
eg. Asch
cannot be sure participants would react same way in real life, and mirror behaviour from experiment in behaviour in day to day life
eg. Asch participants asked to judge line lengths, not task common in real life, so task in lab settings is not true to real life, so cannot be sure people will behave same way in real life

Question 8

Key study in conformity: jenness

Answer 8

Jenness (1932)
aim = examine whether individuals will change opinion when in unclear situation, in response to group discussion

method = jenness used ambiguous situation, involving glass bottle filled with 811 white beans
sample consisted of 26 students, individually estimating how many beans are in glass bottle.
participants then divided into three, asked for group estimate, through estimate
then have to come up with another opportunity to individually estimate number of beans, see if changed original answer

Results= jenness found nearly all participants changed individual estimate, when provided second opportunity to
on average, male participants changed answer by around 256 beans
on average, female changed answer by around 382 beans
before group discussion, was 1875 to 474 afterwards, decrease of 75%
Shows converging opinions after discussion

Conclusion : suggested individuals changed initial estimate, due to ISI, believe group estimates more likely to be correct, compared to their own

Question 9

Autokinetic Effect Experiment

Answer 9

Sherif (1935)
Aim = conducted experiment with aim of demonstrating people conform to group norms when put in unclear situations

Method pt 1 = used lab experiment to study conformity, using autokinetic effect, where small spot of light in dark room looks like it moves, but doesnt.
when individuals asked about distance light moved, their estimates of distances moved varied considerably (like 20-80cm)
Participants tested in groups of 3, sharif manipulated composition of group by putting 2 people together, whos estimate light movement was v similar, and one whos estimate was v different
each person had to say aloud how far they thought light moved.

Results = found over numerous trials that group converged to common estimate, and person whos estimate was most different conformed to view of other two

Showing that people will always tend to conform, rather than individual judgements, tend to come to group agreements

Sharifs Pt2 Experiment
In follow up experiment, sharif started participants in groups, where they agree on group answer, then individuals taken from group and did experiment on own, answers were very similar to group norm.
Suggesting that had internalised group norm, taking it as their own view

Conclusion = shows that in ambiguous situation, person looks to others, for guidance, and wanted to do the right thing, but may lack appropriate information, and observing others can provide this info, example of ISI

Question 10

Comformity experiment - Asch

Answer 10

Asch = Asch Effect = had problem with Sherif (1935) conformity experiment was no correct answer to ambiguous experiment, how can we be sure person conformed with no correct answer?

Asch (1951) devised whats now regarded as classic experiment, in social psychology, as more obvious answer to line judgement task
if participant has incorrect answer, it would be clearly due to group pressure

Aim = Solomon Asch (1951), investigate extent to which social pressure from majority group affects person to conform
Degree to which individuals would conform to majority who gave obviously wrong answers, in non ambiguous situation

Procedure = used lab experiment to study conformity, using 123 US male participants, undergraduates, participated in vision test, put a naive participant in room with up to 8 confederates (pseudo participants) who agreed what answers would be in advance, when presented with line task, real participant wouldn’t know this

Each person in room had to say answer aloud, which comparison line was most like target line, always had obvious answer
Real participant sat at end of row, or one before, and gave their answer last

18 total trials, confederates gave wrong answer on 12 critical trials
Asch wanted to see if real participant would conform to majority view, also experiment had control condition, where there were no confederates (only real participant)

Question 11

Results from Asch (1951) conformity line experiment

Answer 11

Asch measured number of times each person conformed, to majority, and on average about 1/3, 32-32% participants in situation went along with and conformed to clearly incorrect majority, on crtitical trials
around 35% participants conformed in critical trials
over 12 critical trials, about 75% participants conformed once
25% never conformed

in control group, with no confederates, less than 1% gave wrong answer

conclusion = asch interviewed participants after experiment, find out why they conformed, most of participants said knew answers were wrong, went along to fit in, to avoid being ridiculed
confirmed participants complied due to NSI, desire to fit in publicly, without changing private views

aschs study therefore showed compliance, to be liked and not right, supported NSI

Question 12

3 variables of conformity researched by Asch

Answer 12

Group size
Unanimity of the majority
Task difficulty

Question 13

Variable affecting conformity = Group Size

Answer 13

Asch looked at number of people, in a group, whether this had an effect on conformity rate, found very little effect on conformity if only had one or two confederates, in majority

but when there is a majority of 3 confederates, conformity rates go up to 30%, but further increases did not affect conformity rates, showing group size important up to a point

Campbell and Fairey (1989), group size has an effect depending upon type of judgement being made, motivation of individual, if task is ambiguous, conformity likely to happen following majority, if task clear, conformity more likely to happen to fit in

Question 14

Unanimity of majority

Answer 14

When everyone in group agreed with same answer, regardless of whether right or wrong, but if one confederate gave correct answer, comformity levels dropped significantly from 33% to 5.5%
If one confederate gave the wrong answer, not same as majority, conformity rates dropped to 9%, suggesting need only one break in the chain for conformity rates to drop

Question 15

Task difficulty

Answer 15

Measures effect of task difficulty on rates of conformity given to participants
In one variation, Asch made lines harder to distinguish, and harder to tell correct answer, conformity levels rise, ISI.
Lucas et Al (2006), found influence of task difficulty is moderated by self efficacy of individual (how competent or confident person feels in carrying out a task)
When exposed to math problems in Asch type task, high self efficacy individuals remain more independent and less likely to conform
Low self efficacy more likely to conform, showing situational differences, and personality differences both effect conformity rates

Question 16

evaluation of aschs studies of variables affect conformity = as study of time

Answer 16

aschs study is study of its time
Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated aschs original line experiment on engineering students in the UK found only 1 student conformed, in total of 396 trials
whereas 75% conformed in Aschs initial study
showing conformity not always conforming
or engineer students more confident in individual ability
society has changed a lot since 1950s, when asch did study, and could be that people are less conformist now, limitation of asch research, asch effect not consistent throughout periods of time, suggesting being conformist not important feature of human behaviour, and lacks temporal validity

Question 17

evaluation of aschs studies on variables : artificial situation + task

Answer 17

No doubt all participants knew they were in study, and may have shown demand characteristics, guessed aim and shown characteristics that please experimenter, also identifying correct line is very silly task, not very applicable to normal day to day life tasks and not something we encounter in daily life, therefore not be making any difference to participant if conformed or not
Also, although real participants placed in group, Fiske (2014), argues aschs groups were not very groupy, as they do not resemble groups as a part of everyday life.
Both points about actual task and group of confederates open study to criticism, as cannot generalise findings to everyday life, especially in everyday situations may be important, especially when we interact with people + groups in direct manner

Study lacks ecological validity

Question 18

Eval of aschs study on variables = limited application of findings

Answer 18

Participants in Aschs study all men, cannot assume findings also apply to women, and in fact research has suggested women may be more conformist, since concerned about social relationships, such as being accepted, which Neto (1995)

Bond and Smith (1996), point out men from US, more individualistic culture, more concerned about themselves, rather than group, and when Aschs study was carried out in more collectivistic culture, such as China, where social group is more important than individual, conformity rates are higher

Therefore, asch findings very limited, they can only be applied to US males, not to other gender or cultures, therefore argue that research lacks population validity

Question 19

Eval of Aschs studies of variables = Ethical Issues

Answer 19

Aschs research criticised heavily on ethical grounds, main ethical issue was deception, used confederates in group, and real participant not aware of confederate use and the group formation of confederates, also didnt know that confederates were asked to give wrong answers on 12/18 trials.
Deception could then lead to psychological harm for real participant due to confusion why everyone gives clearly wrong answer, and possibly stressed
Also then question if the consent by Asch was fully informed or not, due to deception factor

although Asch did debrief participants after experiment, does this justify the deceit used in the experiment, and does the ends justify the means, in which he conducted the experiment (contravening ethical issues)

Question 20

conformity to social roles - what is it?

Answer 20

simply conforming to the expectations of that particular social role, parts people play as members of various social groups, and behaving in a way that is expected of that role

Question 21

stanford prison experiment = what was being experimented and aim

Answer 21

zimbardo et al (1974)
zimbardo (1973) was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of guards or had more to do w the prison experiment

eg. prisoners and guards may have personalities that make conflict inevitable, prisoners having lack of respect for law and guards being domineering and aggressive or may behave in certain ways because of rigid power structure in prisons

Aim: to see whether people will conform to new social roles, to investigate how readily people would conform to roles of guard and prisoner in simulated prison life

Question 22

Method of stanford prison experiment

Answer 22

• converted basement of psychology building at stanford into mock prison
• he advertised for volunteers asking for about psychological effects of prison life
• more than 70 applicants answered, given diagnostic interviews, and personality tests make sure no health issues and no history crime or drug abuse

-chose 24 male college students, chosen from 75
-paid 15 dollars a day to take part
-randomly assigned prisoner or guard
- 2 reserves, one dropped out, leaving 10 prisoners and 11 guards

-guards worked in sets of 3, replaced after 8 hour shifts
-prisoners = 3 to a room
- also solitary confinement if misbehave
- prisoners arrested at own home, without warning, and taken to local police station, where they were fingerprinted, photographed, and booked

-they were then blindfolded, driven to psych department of stanford, where zimbardo set basement out as prison, with barred doors, and windows, bare walls and small cells, then deindividuation began
-when prisoners arrived at prison, they were stripped naked, deloused, had all personal possessions removed, and locked away, given prison clothes, and bedding, also issued uniform, and only mentioned by ID number
- only using ID number to make prisoner feel anonymous, only refer to himself and other prisoners by their numbers
- clothes = only smock with number on it, no underclothes, also had tight nylon cap, cover their head, locked chain around one ankle

guards
- dressed identically
-khaki uniforms, carry whistle around their neck, and billyclub borrowed form police
-special sunglasses, avoid eye contact w prisoners
-instructed to do whatever they feel was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison, command respect of prisoner,
-no physical violence

Zimbardo = researcher and prison warden / superintendent

Question 23

Stanford Prison Experiment Results

Answer 23

found that both identified quickly with social role
within days the prisoners rebelled, but quickly crushed by guards, then quickly grew more abusive to prisoners
guards then dehumanised the prisoners, waking them during the night, forcing them to clean toilets, with their bare humans
made the prisoners increasingly submissive, identify further with subordinate role

5 released early, adverse reactions, crying and extreme anxiety
Terminated on day 6, meant to be for 2 weeks
Christina Maslasch convinved Zimbardo experiment conditions were inhumane, told him to stop the experiment

Within hours, the guards started to dehumanise the prisoners
taunted with insults and petty orders
they adopted their roles very quickly, they ‘told tales’ to the guards
Over the next few days, the relationship changed, guards fully independent and prisoners completely dependent, held them in contempt
1 had to be released after 36 hours, uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger, v disorganised thinking, thought to be depressed early stages
Zimbardo (1973) intended run fortnight, pHD Christina Malach brought in to conduct interviews with prisoners, had to call off experiment

Conclusion = that people quickly comform to social roles, even when roles, gets against their moral principles, situational factprs were largely responsible for behaviour found, no participants showed this behaviour previously

Question 24

Strengths of SPE

Answer 24

strengths
- good level of control over variables = chose emotionally stable students, each participant randomly assigned to role, no experimenter bias, behaviour had to be due to pressures of situation
high control over lots of variables, increases internal validity, more confident in drawing conclusions about conforming to social roles

SPE and relevance to Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, USA police committed serious human rights violation Zimbardo argues can apply Zimbardos study to real life situations, why guards behave brutally, is due to situation, US guards abused Iraqi soldiers, in 2003-4, combined with opportunity to misuse the power associated with being a ‘guard’ led to prisoner abuse in both situations

Question 25

Weaknesses of SPE

Answer 25

Lack of research support:
- main weakness
- Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially recreated SPE in BBC Prison Experiment, broadcast on BBC, findings were v different to Zimbardos results, was prisoners who took control of the mock prison, subjecting guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience
- Reicher and Haslam (2006) used Social Identity Theory (SIT 1981), to explain this outcome, as guards failed to develop shared identity as cohesive group, prisoners did, they actively identified themselves, as members of social group, refused to accept limits of assigned role of prisoners

Ethical Issues:
- Zimbardo’s dual role in the study, eg. On one occasion student wanted to leave the study, spoke to Zimbardo, in his role as a superintendent. Whole conversation conducted on basis that student was prisoner, asking to be released, but responded as a superintendent worried about running his prison, rather than a researcher with responsibility towards participants

• deception used / lack of informed support = prisoners didnt know they would be arrested in their own homes = psychological distress caused by this would’ve scarred prisoners quite a bit
• extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held, all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, months and years after

Zimbardo argued that benefits about understanding human behaviour and how we can improve society, balances out distress study caused

Question 26

Zimbardo defends study on its ethical grounds

Answer 26

• Only deception was arrest of prisoners at beginning experiment, not told partly as approval from police not given til last minute, partly wanted it to be a surprise, but was a breach of ethics Zimbardo’s own contract all participants signed
• experiment was abandoned after Zimbardo found out just how much prisoners disliked experiment
• Approval for study was given from Office of Naval Research, Psychology Department and University Committee of Human Experimentation, committee also didnt anticipate prisoners extreme reactions that were to follow
• Alternative Methodologies looked at, that could cause less distress, but didnt give anything suitable that gave desired information
• extensive group and debriefing sessions held and all participants returned post experimental questionnaires, several weeks, months and years
  -benefit gained about society improvements and human behaviour, however suggested US navy not interested in making prisons more human, more interested in using study to train people to cope with stresses of captivity

Question 27

Milgrams Research = what is obedience

Answer 27

Form of social influence when individual follows direct order.
Person issuing order is often a figure of authority, power to punish if obedient behaviour not forthcoming

Example = 6 million people systematically slaughtered on command of Nazis during Hitlers regime
Only could be carried out if very large numbers of people obeyed orders, defense of many were that they were just obeying orders
- some character defect = germans more obedient

Question 28

Milgrams Study = Aim

Answer 28

Hitlers Holocaust = basic character deficit = dispositional explanation of behaviour argiung cause of behaviour is by own personality / characteristics

Milgram aimed to question dispositional attribution of Nazis, believe that situation led to inhumane events, and anybody in that position would commit same atrocities if in same circumstances and ordered to by authority figure
- this is a situational explanation

Test germans are different hypothesis, prove holocaust due to dispositional factors of soldiers

Question 29

Method of Milgram experiment

Answer 29

Selected pps by advertising male pps take part in a study, learning at Yale = volunteer sampling method
40 male pps, paid 4 dollars an hour, told study based on memory
Pp paired with learner, draw fixed, confederate always a learner, real pp always a teacher
Mr wallace = learner always = taken into room and had electrodes attached to arms, teacher saw this happening
Mr Wallace asked about medical conditions = “other than minor heart condition im fine!”
Teacher taken into room containing electric shock generator, from 15V (slight shock), to 375V (danger: severe shock), to 450 (XXX)

real pp didnt know this was all fake, thought learner was actually real pp
thought shock generator was real
would actually give out electric shocks
Got one wrong, or nothing at all, pp had to give shock
At 180V learner said cant stand pain
At 300V learner begged he be released
After 315V there was silence

When asked if they should continue, or some other indication not to go on, he would be given encouragement to continue, with 4 prods
- please continue
- experiment requires you continue
-absolutely essential you must continue
-no other choice, you must go on

Prods always in sequence
Only if 1 is unsuccessful, could prod 2 be used, participant continued to disobey after 4, experiment was terminated, tone of voice always firm but not impolite

Question 30

Results / Findings Of Milgram’s Experiment

Answer 30

Predicted that 2% of people would shock to highest level, but most would quit very early on
Asked 14 psych students early on to predict participants behaviour, students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V

However all pps continued to 300V, 65% shocked all the way to 450V
All 40 went up to 300V, by which after that, 5 refused to continue, 4 more gave one more shock then quit
2 broke off at 330V, 1 at 345V, 1 at 360V, 1 at 375V
Total of 14 pps defied experimenter, 26 pps obeyed

During study many pps showed signs of nervousness, and tension, pps trembled, sweated, stuttered, bit lips, groaned, dug fingernails into flesh, and typical not exceptional responses

14/40 nervously laughed, was common sign of tension, seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre

Full blown uncontrollable seizures observed for 3 pps, and on one occasion pp had violently convulsive seizure, experiment had to be halted (46 year old was v embarrassed)
Pps said they are not sadistic, laughter did not mean they enjoyed shocking the learner

All pps debriefed at end of study, assured behaviour was entirely normal, all pps sent follow up questionnaire, 84% reported they felt glad to have participated

Question 31

Conclusion of Milgrams Experiment

Answer 31

Normal / ordinary people will obey authority even if actions may be detrimental, thus hypothesis that “Germans are different” was not supported

Question 32

Evaluation of Milgrams Research = Strengths

Answer 32

Good External Validity
- seemed to lack, as carried out in lab
-still shows relationship between authority figure, experimenter and participant
milgram argued lab environment mimicked real life situations

supported by Hofling et als (1966) study where 21/22 were willing to exceed max dose of drug followed by “Dr Smith of Psychological Department” orders over the phone, nurses didnt even know if it was genuine
- give 20mg of Astrofen drug when max dose is 10mg
-said he was in a hurry, would sign drug authorisation when hes back in 10 mins

Rank and Jacobson (1977)
queried fact that nurses had no knowledge of drug involved, no opportunity to seek advice from peers or anyone more important, they replicated experiment, administer valium at 3 times drug dose, telephone instruction from real, known doctor, nurses able to consult before proceeding, only 2/18 conditions prepared medication as required

Supporting replication (La Jeue De La Mort)
- doc about reality tv, pps believed they were on show called La Zone Xtreme
- paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other pps, that were actors, ordered by presenter
- 80% pps delivered max dose of electric shocks, 460V, to apparently unconscious man
-showed anxiety, nervousness, nail biting, nervous laughter, replication supports original conclusions, about obedience to authority, demonstrating findings not just one off chance occurrence

Question 33

Weaknesses of Milgram’s Experiment

Answer 33

Low internal Validity
- whether procedure used in experiment is measuring what it is supposed to measure
- Orne and Holland (1968) believed that pps just showing demand characteristics, because didnt really believe in set-up, guessed not really giving electric shocks to learner, meaning study not measuring what it intends to measure, and therefore lacks internal validity
- Perry’s (2013), research confirms this, as many of the pps, when listening to tapes of the experiment, expressed doubts of the shocks being real or not

Ethical Issues
- Baumrind (1964) extremely critical of way Milgram used deception
- eg. Not told that learner is a confederate, told that there was random selection, and thought that shocks were real, therefore didnt know full nature of experiment, couldnt give full consent, and thought that deception was betrayal of trust, damage reputation of psychologists and research
- made experiment v difficult to withdraw
- risk of long term harm, put in extreme stress situation, thought that they killed someone or seriously injured someone

• defense : 84% very glad to have participated in post experiment questionnaires,
  1.3% sorry to have taken part
  74% said they learnt something of personal importance
  majority not psychologically harmed, and meaning that experiment was worthwhile, and one year on, they were interviewed, judged to have sustained no psych harm

Question 34

Milgram conducted situational variables experiments

Answer 34

Investigated situational variables that affect obedience including proximity and location, as investigated by Milgram and uniform

Proximity
- tested how the effect of how physically close the learner and teacher are to each other affects obedience, or near to the victim
- 1st variation, teacher and learner in adjoining rooms, so teacher hear but not see learner, caused obedience rates to drop from 65% to 40%
- 2nd variation= force learners hand on electroshock plate, and in same room, when refused to answer a q,in touch proximity the obedience rate dropped to 30%
-3rd variation = remote instruction, the experimenter was giving instructions over the phone, and outcome was further decrease to 20.5%

Location:
-milgram changed location from yale to run down building
- obedience rates fell from 65% - 47.5%
Still quite high level of obedience, but less than 65%

Uniform:
- original baseline study = experimenter = grey / white labcoat = symbol of his authority
- experimenter called away in variation, due to phone call at start of experiment, and ordinary member of public, (confederate) in everyday clothes took over, obedience level dropped to 20%, lowest of all variations

Question 35

Strengths of milgrams variations

Answer 35

Research Support
- other studies showed effect of influence of situational variables
-such as Bickman (1974), 3 male researchers gave orders to 153 pedestrians random, and were dressed in a suit, milkmans uniform, or guards uniform
Gave various orders = pick up bag on street, or nodding give dime to confederate
- obedience rates highest in guard (80%), then milk man or civilian (40%), aupports milgrams conclusion that uniform conveys authority of wearer, likely to produce obedience

Cross - cultural replications
- have been replicated in other cultures too
Miranda et al (1981) found high obedience rates, in spanish students (90%), suggest milgrams conclusions about obedience, not just linked to american males, but females and other cultures too
Milgram did experiment on american females, found same response
- however, Smith and Bond (1998), pointed out milgrams study replicated in well developed societies, spain and australia, cannot apply to all countries, developing countries have diff cultures and norms and values, findings about proximity and location may not apply across world

Good variable control
- especially for proximity and location
-highly controlled, only altered one variable, kept rest constant, see effect on obedience, replicated on 1000 pp in total, not only valid results, but also replicable
-can draw stronger conclusions from results

Question 36

Weaknesses of milgrams variations

Answer 36

Lack of internal validity
- orne and holland (1968) criticises milgrams original study, on grounds that pps worked out whole procedure was a set up and thus fake, pps may have realised, by the 4 prompts used, and variations of milgrams where experimenter replaced by member of public, obedience fell to 20%, even milgram realised, that experiment was contrived, worked out truth, 35% not shocked to full voltage, 450V
Criticism, we do not know if real obedience occurred, or if demand characteristics, saw through deception and acted accordingly

Obedience alibi
- milgrams findings support situational variables, as an explanation of obedience
However David Mandel (1998) argues that using these variables almost makes them an excuse or “alibi” for evil and bad behaviour, and sees it as a feeble excuse to survivors of the holocaust, that the atrocity was due to situational factors beyond their control