Social Influence - Milgram - Baseline Obedience study Flashcards
Who are the participants?
Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American male participants supposedly for a study of memory.
How did the participants get their roles?
Each participant arrived at Milgram’s lab and drew lots for their role and it was always the ‘teacher’
Mr Wallace ?
Mr Wallace was a confederate ‘always the learner’
What was the role of the second confederate?
The role of the second confederate was an ‘experimenter’
He wore a lab coat.
Could the teacher see the learner?
No
Procedure
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.
The shocks …
The shocks were fake but the shock machine was labelled to make them look increasingly severe.
The teacher leaving…
If the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter would give a verbal prod to continue.
Findings
12.5% five participants stopped at 300v
65% continued to 450v
Observations
Participants showed signs of extreme tension.
Three had full blown uncontrollable seizures.
Milgram before the study - interviews
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.
Debriefing
After the study, participants were debriefed.
Follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated.
conclusions
We obey the legitimate authority even if that means our behaviour causes harm to someone else.
Certain situational factors
Encourage obedience.
Evaluation - One strength - Replications - Beauvois (2012)
In a french tv documentary / game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors)
Evaluation - One strength - Replications - Beauvois (2012) - Findings
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.
Evaluation - One strength - Replications - Beauvois (2012) - What does this show?
This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.
Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - Orne and Holland (1968)
Argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So they were ‘play-acting’.
Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - Perry (2013)
Perry’s discovery - only half the participants believed the shocks were real.
Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - What does this suggest
This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.
Perry (2013)
Analysed Milgram’s archive of the tape recordings.
She made several discoveries that undermine the validity of Milgram’s findings and conclusions.
Perry’s findings and conclusions - Experimenter and Participant suspicions
‘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.
Evaluation - One limitation - Lacked internal validity - counterpoint - Sheridan and King (1972)
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.
Evaluation - One limitation - findings not due to blind obedience - Haslam et al (2014)
Found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the experimenter, but the those given a fourth prod disobeyed.
Evaluation - One limitation - findings not due to blind obedience - Social identity theory
According to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth required blind obedience.
Evaluation - One limitation - findings not due to blind obedience - what does this show?
This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience authority.
Prod 1
‘Please continue’ or ‘please go on’
Prod 2
‘The experiment requires that you continue’
Prod 3
‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
Prod 4
‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
Evaluation - one limitation - ethical issues - deceived
The participants in this study were deceived. Thought the shocks were real.
Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.
Evaluation - one limitation - ethical issues - Baumrind (1964)
Felt this deception could have had serious consequences for participants and researchers
e.g. no informed consent possible.
Evaluation - one limitation - ethical issues - what does this mean?
Therefore the research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public.
