Social Influence- Milgram (obediance) Flashcards

1
Q

What are the two explanations of obedience?

A

-Situational attribution
-Dispositional attribution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define situational attribution

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define dispositional attribution

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What was the aim of mailgrams study?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How was the study advertised?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How many volunteers was there and where were they from?

A

-40
-A range of backgrounds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How were the learners selected?

A

-Through a rigged draw so it would be the confederates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the procedure

A

-Teacher was required to administer electric shocks after every wrong answer
-gave the Learner a trigger word which was matched with a word that the Learner had (supposedly) memorised
-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was heard up to 300 volts?

A

-Screams (pre recorded and fake) but they stopped at 300 volts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were the results?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the conclusion of this study?

A

-People obey instructions from authoritive figures even if it harms another participant
-destructive obedience is not a result of nationality or personal factors but is instead made possible by specific situational factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happened if the teacher asked to stop?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Why were the controls kept the same for every participant?

A

-So there were few exrentaneous variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What were the consequences of this study?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How were the participants debriefed after the experiment?

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Give 3 strengths of this study

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Give 3 weaknesses of this study

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Why were there variations of the original experiment?

A

-To see which factors increased/ decrease obedience

19
Q

Which factors increase obedience?

A

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

20
Q

Why is the study being unethical a limitation?

A

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
means that the study cannot be replicated today
Counter: Essential to deceive and remove the right of withdrawal from the participants to get valid results

21
Q

Why is ecological validity a weakness of this study?

A

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

22
Q

Why is low population validity a limitation?

A

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

23
Q

What were the 6 variations of Milgram’s study?

A

-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

24
Q

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

A

-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%

25
What was the method of Hoflings (1966) study? Use for eval
-22 real nurses + Dr. Smith (they did not know who he was, 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 Milgram's findings have been reflected in other research on obedience such as Hofling et al. (1966) who conducted a field study using a naive sample of 22 nurses the Astroten box clearly stated that the maximum daily dose was 10mg 21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed the unethical order, which broke hospital guidelines The findings support the idea that harmful acts can be committed by seemingly caring people Thus, Milgram's study has good external validity as similar effects as were observed in his study can be seen in the real world
26
What were the results of Hoflings (1966) study? use for eval
-21/22 nurses started to give the drug until they were stopped by another nurse -They obeyed the unethical order which broke hospitail guidlines -When interviewed after they all said that they were asked to go against training rules by doctors regularly The findings support the idea that harmful acts can be committed by seemingly caring people Thus, Milgram's study has good external validity as similar effects as were observed in his study can be seen in the real wor
27
Outline Bickman's study (1974)
-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
28
What are the factors affecting obedience
-Agentic state -Legitimacy of authority -Uniform -Location -Proximity
29
What is Agentic state ?
-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
30
How does agentic state link to the variations, Hofling or milligrams variations?
-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
31
What is the Legitimacy of authority?
-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
32
How does the legitimacy of authority link to the variations?
-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
33
How does uniform affect obedience?
-Research suggests that we are more likely to obey a person in uniform, in comparison to a person not wearing a uniform
34
How does uniform link to the variations?
-Bickman (1974) -People are more likely to obey the guard in comparison to a civillian as the uniform gives the guard legitimate authority
35
How does location affect obedience?
-The legitimacy of the location affects obedience -We have to believe the setting is genuine for an order to take place
36
How does location link to the variations?
-Milgram variation- run-down office -Only 48% of the participants administered the full 450v shock
37
How does proximity affect obedience?
-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 -Destructive obedience is more easily achieved if the person/people being harmed are out of sight (if they can't be seen then this reduces moral strain)
38
How does proximity link to the variations?
-Milgram variation-teacher had to force learners' hand onto the shock plate -ONly 30% administered the full 450v shock
39
Why did Milgram originally conduct his study?
destructive obedience in response to the atrocities committed in World War II
40
What was Milgram's original hypothesis? Which explanation does this support?
-Germans must be different to all other nations due to their involvement in the Holocaust -Dispositional
41
What were the situational factors (binding factors) which contributed to the participant's high levels of obediance?
-The experiment took place at a high-status Yale University i.e. it was ‘important’ -the prompts were given by the experimenter who was wearing a lab coat (a legitimate authority figure) -the fact that the participants had volunteered to take part and had been paid a small sum for doing so -the feeling that the situation was not in their control and they were ‘just obeying orders’ (agency theory)
42
Give some strengths of the variations
-Bickman -Same standardised procedure, easy to replicate
43
Give some limitations of the variations
-Some variations were hard to fake and required consistent and convincing acting otherwise results could be impacted -situational variables explain destructive obedience could be abused for purely evil reasons acts of cruelty, tyranny or brutality could be excused as 'the situation made me do it' which is a worrying idea