Social Influence- Milgram (obediance)

Question 1

What are the two explanations of obedience?

Answer 1

-Situational attribution
-Dispositional attribution

Question 2

Define situational attribution

Answer 2

-Inferring that a persons behaviour is caused by something about the situation they are in

Question 3

Define dispositional attribution

Answer 3

-Inferring that the reason for a persons behaviour is something about themselves such as their personality

Question 4

What was the aim of mailgrams study?

Answer 4

-To find out whether ordinary Americans would obey unjust orders from a person of authority to inflict pain on another person

Question 5

How was the study advertised?

Answer 5

-In a local newspaper
-Paid $4.50
-A study about how punishment affects learning

Question 6

How many volunteers was there and where were they from?

Answer 6

-40
-A range of backgrounds

Question 7

How were the learners selected?

Answer 7

-Through a rigged draw so it would be the confederates

Question 8

What was the procedure

Answer 8

-Teacher was required to administer electric shocks after every wrong answer
-Teacher was given a mild shock before hand to prove that the machine was real
-Started at 15 volts and went up 15 every time, max was 450

Question 9

What was heard up to 300 volts?

Answer 9

-Screams but they stopped at 300 volts

Question 10

What were the results?

Answer 10

-100% delivered shocks up until 300
-65% delivered shocks up until 450
-Much higher than they expected

Question 11

What was the conclusion of this study?

Answer 11

-People obey instructions from authoritive figures even if it harms another participant

Question 12

What happened if the teacher asked to stop?

Answer 12

-Prompted to carry on
- “this experiment requires you to continue”
-“you have no other choice you must continue

Question 13

Why were the controls kept the same for every participant?

Answer 13

-So there were few exrentaneous variables

Question 14

What were the consequences of this study?

Answer 14

-Suffered extreme nervous tension- nervous laughing
-Physically sweating
-Continually asking for reassurance from experimenter
-One participant had an epileptic fit

Question 15

How were the participants debriefed after the experiment?

Answer 15

-Told their behaviour was normal
-Told the nature of the experiment
-Followed up a year later to ensure there was no lasting psychological problems

Question 16

Give 3 strengths of this study

Answer 16

-Reliable- standardised procedure
-Helps to explain real life situations
-study identified important factors that affect a persons obedience of legitimacy of authority

Question 17

Give 3 weaknesses of this study

Answer 17

-Lacks temporal validity
-Lacks internal validity
-Breaks ethical guidelines

Question 18

Why were there variations of the original experiment?

Answer 18

-To see which factors increased/ decrease obedience

Question 19

Which factors increase obedience?

Answer 19

-Legitimacy of authority
-Social isolation
-Proximity to victim
-Gradual commitment
-Deferred responsibility

Question 20

Why is the study being unethical a limitation?

Answer 20

P- Broke ethical guidelines set out in 1953
E-Deceived- told them they were investigating the effect of punishment and learning when he was measuring obedediance and lied about the electric shocks
-Right to withdraw- very difficult, prompted to carry on
Harm-Very stressed+ anxious
L- An issue because the volunteers felt guilt about possibly harming another participant
Counter: Essential to deceive and remove the right of withdrawal from the participants to get valid results

Question 21

Why is ecological validity a weakness of this study?

Answer 21

P-Lacks ecological validity
E-tested obedience in a lab, very different to real life situations
E-People are normally asked to follow subtle instructions not administer electric shocks
L-Cannot generalise findings to real life situations, people may obey less severe instructions differently

Question 22

Why is low population validity a limitation?

Answer 22

P-Lacks population validity
E-Bias sample of 40 men- underepresentitve
E-cannot generalise to the whole population particularly females
L-Cannot conclude that females would respond in the same way
Counter: Did include men from various different backgrounds so some cultural diversity

Question 23

How is research support a strength of this study?

Answer 23

P- Beauvoir et al 2012
E- A French documentary focused on a game sow, participants were paid to give electric shocks ordered by the presenter to other participants in front of a studio audience- Fake shock and actor
E-80% of the participants delivered the max shock (460) to an unconscious man
L-Participants were visibly anxious, supports mailgrams original findings of obeying authorities

Question 24

What were the 6 variations of Milgram’s study?

Answer 24

-Someone lese administered the shock
-The experiment took place in a rundown office building
-The teacher and learner were in the same room
-The teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate
-The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone
-Participants worked in groups to shock the learner (two rebelled and refused to go on

Question 25

What were the percentages of the participants who administered 450 volts in each of the variations?

Answer 25

-Someone lese administered the shock- 92.5%
-The experiment took place in a rundown office building- 48%
-The teacher and learner were in the same room- 40%
-The teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate- 30%
-The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone-20%
-Participants worked in groups to shock the learner (two rebelled and refused to go on- 10%

Question 26

What was the method of Hoflings (1966) study?

Answer 26

-22 real nurses+ Dr. Smith ( the researcher) phoned the hospital asking the nurses to administer a drug they had never heard of (it was a placebo)- Astron
-Max dose was 10mg but they were asked to give 20mg
-Dr.smith said he would sign the authorisation form when he got there

Question 27

What were the results of Hoflings (1966) study?

Answer 27

-21/22 nurses started to give the drug until they were stopped by another nurse
-When interviewed after they all said that they were asked to go against training rules by doctors regularly

Question 28

Outline Bickman’s study (1974)

Answer 28

-Dressed up in uniforms of a civilian, milkman and a guard
-Asked random members of the public to carry out instructions such as dropping litter on the floor

Question 29

What are the factors affecting obedience

Answer 29

-Agentic state
-Legitimacy of authority
-Uniform
-Location
-Proximity

Question 30

What is Agentic state ?

Answer 30

-Where we can deny personal responsibility for our actions as we have been ordered to behave this way
-or we can shift the responsibility onto the person who told us to do it

Question 31

How does agentic state link to the variations, Hofling or milligrams variations?

Answer 31

-Hofling- can blame Dr. Smith as he was the one who ordered us to administer the drug
-Milgram variation- someone else administered the electric shock, 92.5% of the participants went up to 450v

Question 32

What is the Legitimacy of authority?

Answer 32

-An authority figure must have some kind of social power over us which is usually the power to punish
-We have to perceive the person as genuine to follow their instructions

Question 33

How does the legitimacy of authority link to the variations?

Answer 33

-Hofling (1966)
-The doctor had legitimate authority over the nurses so they did not want to face the consequences if they did not administer the drug

Question 34

How does uniform affect obedience?

Answer 34

-Research suggests that we are more likely to obey a person in uniform, in comparison to a person not wearing a uniform

Question 35

How does uniform link to the variations?

Answer 35

-Bickman (1974)
-People are more likely to obey the guard in comparison to a civillian as the uniform gives the guard legitimate authority

Question 36

How does location affect obedience?

Answer 36

-The legitimacy of the location affects obedience
-We have to believe the setting is genuine for an order to take place

Question 37

How does location link to the variations?

Answer 37

-Milgram variation- run-down office
-Only 48% of the participants administered the full 450v shock

Question 38

How does proximity affect obedience?

Answer 38

-The closer we are to the consequences of our actions, the less likely we are to obey as we can see the potential harm of our behaviour

Question 39

How does proximity link to the variations?

Answer 39

-Milgram variation-teacher had to force learners’ hand onto the shock plate
-ONly 30% administered the full 450v shock