Social Influence - Milgram - Baseline Obedience study

Question 1

Who are the participants?

Answer 1

Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American male participants supposedly for a study of memory.

Question 2

How did the participants get their roles?

Answer 2

Each participant arrived at Milgram’s lab and drew lots for their role and it was always the ‘teacher’

Question 3

Mr Wallace ?

Answer 3

Mr Wallace was a confederate ‘always the learner’

Question 4

What was the role of the second confederate?

Answer 4

The role of the second confederate was an ‘experimenter’

He wore a lab coat.

Question 5

Could the teacher see the learner?

Answer 5

No

Question 6

Procedure

Answer 6

The teacher had to give an increasingly severe electric shock each time a mistake was made on a task.
The shock increased in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts.

Question 7

The shocks …

Answer 7

The shocks were fake but the shock machine was labelled to make them look increasingly severe.

Question 8

The teacher leaving…

Answer 8

If the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter would give a verbal prod to continue.

Question 9

Findings

Answer 9

12.5% five participants stopped at 300v

65% continued to 450v

Question 10

Observations

Answer 10

Participants showed signs of extreme tension.

Three had full blown uncontrollable seizures.

Question 11

Milgram before the study - interviews

Answer 11

Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought the naive participants would respond.

The students estimated no more than 3% would continue past 450v so the baseline study findings were unexpected.

Question 12

Debriefing

Answer 12

After the study, participants were debriefed.

Follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated.

Question 13

conclusions

Answer 13

We obey the legitimate authority even if that means our behaviour causes harm to someone else.

Question 14

Certain situational factors

Answer 14

Encourage obedience.

Question 15

Evaluation - One strength - Replications - Beauvois (2012)

Answer 15

In a french tv documentary / game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors)

Question 16

Evaluation - One strength - Replications - Beauvois (2012) - Findings

Answer 16

80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
Their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants e.g. many signs of anxiety.

Question 17

Evaluation - One strength - Replications - Beauvois (2012) - What does this show?

Answer 17

This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.

Question 18

Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - Orne and Holland (1968)

Answer 18

Argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So they were ‘play-acting’.

Question 19

Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - Perry (2013)

Answer 19

Perry’s discovery - only half the participants believed the shocks were real.

Question 20

Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - What does this suggest

Answer 20

This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.

Question 21

Perry (2013)

Answer 21

Analysed Milgram’s archive of the tape recordings.

She made several discoveries that undermine the validity of Milgram’s findings and conclusions.

Question 22

Perry’s findings and conclusions - Experimenter and Participant suspicions

Answer 22

‘Experimenter’ often went off of script, for example he would vary the wording of the prod and use them excessively (26 times with one unfortunate participant).

Participants often voiced their suspicions about the shocks; Perry concluded that most of Milgram’s participants realised that the shocks were fake.

Question 23

Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - counterpoint - Sheridan and King (1972)

Answer 23

Participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of the males and 100% of the females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
Suggesting that Milgram’s study may have been genuine.

Question 24

Evaluation - One limitation - findings not due to blind obedience - Haslam et al (2014)

Answer 24

Found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the experimenter, but the those given a fourth prod disobeyed.

Question 25

Evaluation - One limitation - findings not due to blind obedience - Social identity theory

Answer 25

According to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth required blind obedience.

Question 26

Evaluation - One limitation - findings not due to blind obedience - what does this show?

Answer 26

This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience authority.

Question 27

Prod 1

Answer 27

‘Please continue’ or ‘please go on’

Question 28

Prod 2

Answer 28

‘The experiment requires that you continue’

Question 29

Prod 3

Answer 29

‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’

Question 30

Prod 4

Answer 30

‘You have no other choice, you must go on’

Question 31

Evaluation - one limitation - ethical issues - deceived

Answer 31

The participants in this study were deceived. Thought the shocks were real.
Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.

Question 32

Evaluation - one limitation - ethical issues - Baumrind (1964)

Answer 32

Felt this deception could have had serious consequences for participants and researchers
e.g. no informed consent possible.

Question 33

Evaluation - one limitation - ethical issues - what does this mean?

Answer 33

Therefore the research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public.