Social Influence - Milgram and Obedience Flashcards
What are the differences between obedience and conformity?
- Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person giving the order is usually an authority figure, who has the power to punish when people do not obey.
- Whereas conformity is a form of social influence in which an individual responds to perceived group pressure.
- Obedience occurs within a social hierarchy whereas conformity occurs between people of equal status.
- In obedience, the obedient behaviour is often different from the behaviour of the authority figure, where in conformity, the conformist behaviour is the same as that of the social group.
- Obedience occurs in response to an explicit order, whereas conformity occurs in response to implicit pressure.
- With obedience, people often embrace it as the reasons why they acted as they did, whereas with conformity, people often deny its influence on their behaviour.
What were the aims and procedure of Milgram’s experiment?
Aims:
- To test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis which claimed that Germans are highly obedient and that Adolf Hitler could not have exterminated the Jewish people and other minority groups in the 1930’s and 1940’s without the unquestioning co-operation of the German population
- To see if individuals would obey orders of an authority figure that incurred negative consequences and went against one’s moral code
Procedure -
1. 40 American males ages 20-50 years responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University Psychology Department, and they were met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat to indicate authority, who was actually a normal teacher; he introduced them to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant (gentle, harmless man in his 50s) with participants being told that the experiment concerned the effects of punishment on learning and that they would be either a ‘teacher’ or a ‘learner’ with randomly determined roles. This was rigged; Wallace was always the learner and they were always the teacher
2. The experiment explained the punishments involved increasingly severe electric shocks, with all three entering a adjoining room in which the experimenter strapped the learner into a chair with arms attached to electrodes, and the teacher was instructed to give shocks through a shock generator in a different room. This generator had a row of switches each marked with a voltage level, starting with 15 volts, a ‘slight shock’ and a maximum of 450 volts ‘XXX’ increasing in 15 volt intervals - the real participant received a 45 volt shock to convince him it was real
3. Participants then read out a series of paired-associate word tasks, in which they received a pre-recorded series of verbal answers from the learner, with the real participant believing these to be genuine responses - teacher was told by experimenter to give a shock each time Wallace got the answers wrong, and his answers were given by him supposedly switching one of four lights located above the shock generator. With each successive mistake, the teacher gave the next highest shock.
4. At 150 volts the learner began to protest and demanded to be released; before this he had been willing to take part; the protests became more intense and at 300 volts he refused to continue answering, saying he had heart problems that were starting to both him, screaming loudly at 315 volts and from 330 volts stopped responding. Whenever the teacher was reluctant to continue, he was encouraged with verbal prods such as ‘the experiment requires you to continue’ and ‘you have no choice, you must go on’. If the teacher questioned the procedure, he was told the shocks will not cause any lasting tissue damage and was also instructed to keep shocking the learner if he stopped answering.
MIlgram’s Findings and Conclusions
- Quantitative results - obedience was measured as the percentage of participants giving shocks up to the maximum 450 volts; in the main version of the experiment, the obedience rate was 62.5% (25 out of 40), with an earlier ‘remote victim’ version garnering similar results - 100% of participants continued until at least 300 volts (the point of learner protest)
- Qualitative results - many participants showed distress, such as twitching, sweating or giggling nervously, digging their nails into their flesh and verbally attacking the experimenter; three participants had uncontrollable seizures and some participants showed little to no signs of discomfort, instead concentrating dutifully on what they were doing
Conclusions:
- The ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis is clearly fake, as Milgram’s participants were 40 ‘ordinary’ Americans
- Their high level of obedience showed that people obey those regarded as authority figures, with the results suggesting that obeying those in authority is normal behaviour in a hierarchically organised society, obeying orders that distress us and go against our moral code
- Milgram paradigm - he established the basic methodology for studying obedience (strength of research; it was a pilot study, and produced 19 variations and multiple daughter studies that have been very informative about obedience)
- Milgram was shocked by the high obedience rate, with initial predictions stating that only 1% of people were expected to go to the full 450 volts (counterargument of Baumrind’s criticism, which is invalid as Milgram did not expect results)
Evaluation of Milgram - Ethical considerations
- Milgram had his membership of the APA briefly revoked, and his study inadvertently caused a change and creation in ethical guidelines for psychological study
- Psychological harm - Unethical
- Exposed participants to severe stress, including causing severe physical reactions
- Perry (2012) claimed that Milgram’s debriefing of his almost 3,000 participants did not always occur, as he worried a debrief would confound results, and as a result Baumrind (1964) accused him of putting research above participants feelings and rights
- However, only 2% of people regretted their involvement and 74% said they learned something about themselves, with a thorough debriefing being carried out where they met the unharmed learner, along with all 40 participants receiving a psychiatric assessment a year later (none showed long term damage); study is justified by cost-benefit analysis - short-term effects do not outweigh long term gain - Deception / informed consent - convoluted
- Milgram deceived his participants, as he did not tell them the true methodology or purpose of the study, with him only mentioning the electric shocks after they had agreed to take part - no one was harmed and the others were only confederates, but participants could not give informed consent as they had not volunteered for the specific task
- Milgram defended this use of deception by debriefing participants - he stated deception was necessary to gain realistic behaviour; if participants believed the shocks were fake, results would not be generalisable to real-life situations
Evaluation of Milgram - Ethical considerations cont.
- Right to withdraw - unethical
- No explicit right to withdraw was offered, and attempts to withdraw were met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue
- Milgram however argued that participants had a right to withdraw, as 35% of them used this option and refused to continue - Inducement to take part - not an issue
- The advert asking for volunteers stated they would be paid $4 for taking part, which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study
- However - the advert stated payment would happen upon entrance and no participant claimed that they acted to get the money
Evaluation of Milgram - Methodological considerations
- External validity - weakness
- The findings have been criticised for not being able to be generalised beyond experimental settings
1.1 Androcentrism
- Results cannot be generalised to females as none took part; females may be more submissive to authority due to perceived gender roles, particularly in a hierarchy with males
- Androcentrism; the research - Sheridan and King (1972) used male and female participants in a Milgram-style study where shocks were given to a puppy every time it responded to commands incorrectly using the same shock system as Milgram; shocks were mild to produce the effect that the puppy was being harmed, and an anaesthetic gas was used to render them unconscious making the participants think they had killed it
- Despite being visibly distressed, 54% of males and 100% of females obeyed up to an apparent 450 volts, supporting the idea that Milgram’s research was androcentric as females are more obedient
1.2 Cultural bias
- Only used American participants - cannot necessarily be generalised to other cultures, as there are cultural differences regarding authority, with research backing up this criticism and showing varying levels of obedience amongst cultures
- Research - Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) found the highest recorded obedience level with the Milgram paradigm of 90% of Spanish participants, with the lowest obedience being found in Kilham and Mann’s (1974) Australian study (28%), proving that there is cultural variation in attitudes to authority, as Australians typically negatively view authority (a German study found 80%)
Evaluation of Milgram - Methodological considerations cont.
1.3 Historical validity
- It has been suggested that the high rate of obedience found in the Milgram study was a product of American culture being very authoritarian and obedient during the early 1960s and so does not reflect obedience today
1.4 Ecological validity
- Milgram’s paradigm has been criticised for how unrepresentative it is of real-life occurrences
- Internal validity - strength
(the degree to which findings are attributed to the effect on the IV)
- Would lack this if participants did not believe the shocks were real, which was a criticism from Orne and Holland (1968) who claimed the participant knew they were false - however, 75% of participants in post-study interviews stated that they believed them to be real
- The extreme physical responses also suggest they believed it to be real
Situational variables affecting obedience - variations of Milgram’s study
Proximity -
- In the original study, the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms so the teacher could hear the learner but not see him - in this variation, they were in the same room, with obedience dropping from 65% to 40%
- In another variation, the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an ‘electroshock’ plate when he refused to answer a question; obedience in this condition dropped to 30%
- In another variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher via telephone - obedience in this condition dropped to 20.5%; the participants also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones than they were ordered to
Location -
- In this variation, Milgram changed the location of the study from the prestigious university setting to a run-down building, to remove some authority from the experimenter
- Obedience fell to 47.5%, which is high but is still reduced, showing that environment adds to authority
Uniform -
- In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority - in one variation, the experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient phone call at the start of the experiment and a replacement experimenter, an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in normal clothes took over the role
- Obedience dropped to 20%
The variations - evaluation
- The testing of different variables makes Milgram’s conclusions more valid as he has tested other influences, increasing our understanding of the nature of obedience
- His research was systematic, controlled, objective and scientific
- Field experiments have also confirmed his results in these variations - proves mundane realism and external validity, as well as justifying the internal validity of the methodology of the paradigm
- Ethical considerations of consent and psychological harm still apply
Further Milgram Studies / Milgram paradigms
- Le Jeu de la Mort (the Game of Death) is a French documentary about reality TV that includes a replication of Milgram’s study. Participants were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants (who were actors) when ordered to by the presenter, in front of a studio audience. 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to Milgram’s participants (e.g. nervous laughter, nail biting etc.).
- Another study found that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands by doctors on a hospital ward (Hofling 1966, proving the uniform and environmental variations affecting obedience, and that obedience results have mundane realism - also shows Milgram’s studies are reliable)
Jerry Burger (2009) - Modern Milgram Study
- Developed a version of Milgram’s study that addressed ethical concerns, intending to create a comparison with the original investigation whilst protecting the well-being of the participants
Procedure -
- Used mainly the same procedure, with some important alterations
1. No one with knowledge of Milgram’s study was used and the maximum apparent shock was 150 volts, the level at which the learner first cries out in pain, protecting participants from intense shock
2. A two-step screening process for participants was used to exclude anyone who may react negatively; no one with a history of mental health issues or stress reactions was accepted, excluding 38% of potential participants
3. Participants were told 3 times they could withdraw at any time and received only a 15 volt real shock
4. The experimenter was a clinical psychologist who could stop the procedure at any sign of excessive stress
5. 70 male and female participants were used, with relevant ethical monitoring body approving the procedure
Jerry Burger (2009) - Findings, Conclusions and Evaluation
Findings -
- Burger found an obedience rate of 70%, with no difference between male and female obedience rates
- Another condition, in which a second defiant confederate teacher was introduced, failed to reduce obedience significantly, unlike Milgram’s findings
Conclusions -
- It is possible to replicate Milgram’s study in an ethical way, and obedience rates have not changed dramatically in the 50 years since Milgram’s study
Evaluation -
- Burger’s technique permits obedience research to be conducted that has not been possible for decades
- His efforts to improve the ethics of the study are uncertain in their effectiveness and pose impractical demands
- Different procedures are used to Milgram, which does not allow for a clear comparison of results
- The study highlights the difficulties of extending research on destructive obedience in the context of contemporary ethical guidelines
Evaluation of Milgram - Weaknesses; Ethical
- Participants were deceived and led to believe that the allocation of roles was random, the electric shocks were real and this was a real betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychologists and their research (also did not have fully informed consent). Also caused severe psychological harm as participants were distressed by giving what they thought were real electric shocks to another person, with some having seizures -however, these criticisms are based on the assumption that the findings he expected
- This means that the study was unethical
- Counterargument; Milgram argued it was necessary for results for them to be deceived and debriefed after, and this also avoids demand characteristics - No explicit right to withdraw was given before the study began, with attempts to withdraw being met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue; however, Milgram argued that participants did have the right to withdraw, as 35% of them exercised this option and refused to carry on
- This means it was unethical, and this also weakens the internal validity of the study, as the participants may not have felt they had an option to leave, causing them to obey as they had no clear alternative
Evaluation of Milgram - Weaknesses; Methodological
- It has been argued that participants acted as they did because they didn’t believe that the shocks were real (demand characteristics). Subsequent researchers have listened to the recordings of the study and confirmed that a number of participants had doubts about the reality of the shocks; however, a similar study conducted with real shocks were given to a puppy, with fatal shocks being delivered
- Shows androcentrism and the results are affected by demand characteristics, causing a lack of internal validity
Counter - however, puppy study suggests the conclusions may have some external validity and generalisability - Social identity theory argues obedience is due to identification in the group, with the participants identifying with the science of the study; when obedience levels fell, it was because they no longer identified with the science and instead with the victim or the other group. It has also been argued that the first 3 verbal prods did not demand obedience, but instead demanded help for the science; only the 4th prod demands obedience.
- This suggests the study lacks internal validity in the early stages, and may not correctly explain the source of obedience
Evaluation of Milgram - Strengths / Methodological
- Le Jeu de la Mort replication - showed behaviour identical to Milgram’s participants
- This suggests high reliability / replicability and high external validity as it has been repeated and the conclusions are true and they may be more generalisable - The study may appear to lack external validity as it was conducted in a lab, but the central feature of the study was the relationship between the authority figure and the participant - Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life - other research, such as the study of nurses, supports this.
- High external validity, it may appear to lack ecological validity, but in reality it does represent the relationships and environments of obedience
