SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Milgram's Obedience Research

Question 1

What is obedience

Answer 1

Obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person.
The person who gives the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

Question 2

Context of Milgram’s study

Answer 2

The Nazi extermination policy towards the Jews began in 1941 when special mobile killing units began lining up & shooting Jews in mass graves
- 12,000 Jews were killed daily
- On 11th April 1961, the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi soldier in WWII began. He was widely regarded as the architect of the Holocaust
- He stated, “I was only obeying orders”

Question 3

Other examples of events in which people supposedly were simply obeying orders

Answer 3

The Holocaust, 1933-45
My Lai Massacrer, Vietnam 1968
Rwandan Genocide, 1994
Abu Graib prison abuse, 2004

Question 4

What question was Milgram’s study aiming to answer

Answer 4

Study of obedience to authority

‘Is such brutality a product of evil & sadistic minds, or did ordinary ppl perform this extraordinary behaviour?’

‘Could it be that Eichmann & his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?’

Question 5

When was Milgram’s experiment

Answer 5

1963

Question 6

Method of Milgram’s experiment

Answer 6

• There were 40 male participants, who responded to a newspaper advert seeking volunteers for a study on ‘learning & memory’. They received payment for attending.
• The experimenter wore a grey technician’s coat. Each participant was introduced to a confederate (acting like a participant but was part of the experiment set-up). They drew lots to see who would act as ‘teacher’ & ‘learner’ but this was fixed two the participant was always teacher
• The participant witnesses the confederate being strapped into a chair & connected up to a shock generator in the next room. It did not acc give electric shocks but the participants thought it was real. The switches ranged from 15V (labelled slight shock) to 450V (labelled XXX). The participants taught the learner word-pairs over an intercom. When the learner answered incorrectly, the participant was instructed to administer an increasing level of shock.
• If participants hesitated during the process, the experimenter told them to continue
• Debriefing included an interview, questionnaires & being reunited w the ‘learner’

Question 7

Simple overview of Milgram’s study

Answer 7

Milgram conducted a number of laboratory experiments to test factors thought to affect obedience. This condition tested whether ppl would obey orders to shock smne is a separate room. Took place at Yale University

Question 8

Results of Milgram’s experiment

Answer 8

• 26 participants (65%) administered 450V & none stopped before administering 300V
• Most of the participants showed obvious signs of stress like sweating, groaning, trembling

Question 9

simple

Conclusion of Milgram’s experiment

Answer 9

Ordinary ppl will obey orders to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience

Question 10

What did Milgram’s research tell us about obedience to authority figures?

Answer 10

• Ordinary ppl are astonishingly obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way
• It is not necessarily evil ppl who commit evil crimes but ordinary ppl who are just obeying orders
• Crimes against humanity may be the outcome of situational rather than dispositional factors
• An individual’s capacity for making independent decisions is suspended under certain situational constraints - namely, being given an order by an authority figure

Question 11

What is internal validity

Answer 11

The degree to which the observed effect occurred due to the manipulated independent variable (was the experiment testing what it stated?)

Question 12

Did the participants believe it was real?

Answer 12

Realism was refuted by psychologists. Experimenter was cool & distant when learners cried out in pain. Therefore, participants supposed the victim cannot really be suffering any real harm & this was why so many administered all the shocks

Question 13

Evaluation: did the experiment have low internal validity

Answer 13

Orne & Holand (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did bc they did not rlly believe the shocks were real. Therefore it lacked internal validity
Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants & reported that many of them expressed their doubts abt the shocks being real

Question 14

Who supported the realism of Milgram’s study

Answer 14

Sheridan & King (1972)

Question 15

What did Sheridan & King do

Answer 15

Support the realism of Milgram’s study w their own findings. They asked participants to give electric shocks to a puppy in a cage. Shocks were real, participants could see & hear the puppy.
54% of males delivered maximum voltage shocks
100% of females delivered maximum voltage shocks

Question 16

Supporting replication of Milgram’s conclusion

Answer 16

The Game of Death, 2010 (‘La zone Xtreme’)
- 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock of 460V to an unconscious man

Question 17

Evaluation in support of Milgram’s study which shows good external validity

Answer 17

Studied relationship between authority figure & participant
- Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward & found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were vey high
- 21/22 obeyed

Question 18

Method of Hofling et al. study

Answer 18

Procedure involved a naturalistic field experiment involving 22 real night nurses. Dr. Smith (a stooge) phoned the nurses at the hospital (on 22 separation occasions) & asked them to check to see if they have the drug, astroten. When the nurse checked, she saw that the max dosage is supposed to be 10mg. When they reported to the ‘doctor’, they were told to administer 20mg of the drug to a patient, ‘Mr. Jones’. Dr. Smith was in a desperate hurry & he would sign the authorisation form when he came to see Mr. Jones later on

Question 19

What 3 hospital rules did the nurse break if she was to administer the drug

Answer 19

1. They are not allowed to accept instructions over the phone
2. The dose asked for was double the max limit stated on box
3. The medicine itself was unauthorised

Thee drug itself was a harmless sugar pill invented just for the experiment

Question 20

Who replicated the nurse study after Hofling et al.

Answer 20

Rank & Jacobson (1977)

Question 21

What did Rank & Jacobson do

Answer 21

• Nurses were asked to administer Valium, a drug that the nurses should have been familiar with
• They also gave the doctor a name known to the nurses, & the nurses all had the chance to discuss the order w each other (rather than being alone like in Hofling’s experiment)
• In these realistic circumstances only 2/18 nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders

Question 22

Ethical issues with Milgram’s study

Answer 22

Baumrind (1964) was very critical abt the way Milgram deceived his participants
- They believed they were randomly allocated the roles of tease or learner
- They believed the electric shocks were real
This level of betrayal of trust could damage the reputation of other psychologists

Question 23

Extra evaluation: what is the Social identity theory

Answer 23

states that the key to obedience lies in group identification.
eg. Participants identified w the experimenter & identified w the science of the study.
If the obedience level fell, this was due to participants identifying less w the science & more w the learner

Question 24

Evaluation of Milgram’s experiment

Answer 24

• Lacked internal validity - it’s possible the participants didn’t rlly believe they were inflicting electric shocks - they were just going along w the experimenter’s expectations
• Lacked ecological validity - task is unlikely to be encountered irl. However, since it was a laboratory exp, good control of variables
• Ethical issues - participants deceived as to true nature of stud, meaning they couldn’t give informed consent. They weren’t informed of their right to withdraw from the exp, in fact they were prompted to continue when they wanted to stop. However, after debriefed, 84% said they were pleased to have taken part