SOCIAL INFLUENCE - milgram's research

Question 1

who performed research into obedience?

Answer 1

• milgram

Question 2

what year was MILGRAM’s study?

Answer 2

• 1963

Question 3

how many participants did MILGRAM have?

Answer 3

• 40

Question 4

who were MILGRAM’s participants?

Answer 4

• american
• male
• 20 - 50 years of old

Question 5

• what sampling method did MILGRAM use?

Answer 5

• volunteer sampling with a $4.50 incentive
  (was told the study was for memory)
• ‘randomly’ assigned roles of teacher and learner

Question 6

what was the set-up of the experiment?

Answer 6

• ‘teacher’ and experimenter were in the same room

- ‘student’ in a different room

Question 7

what was the procedure of MILGRAM’s experiment?

Answer 7

• ‘teacher’ shocked ‘learner’ when they gave an incorrect answer to a question on a learning task
• shocks started at 15v and then increased to 450v
• at 300v the learner gave no further response

Question 8

what happened if a participant wanted to leave?

Answer 8

• right to withdraw was suppressed
  (not denied)
• used 4 prods such as ‘please continue’

Question 9

what were MILGRAM’s findings?

Answer 9

(quantitative)

• no one stopped below 300v
• 12.5% stopped at 300v
• 65% continued to 450v

(qualitative)
- participants showed signs of tension

Question 10

EVALUATION

what did ORNE and HOLLAND say? and how does this relate to MILGRAM?

Answer 10

• the participants didn’t really believe the shocks were real
• PERRY confirmed this by listening to recordings of the study
  so. ..
• reduces the internal validity of the study

Question 11

EVALUATION

what did HOFLING do? and how does this relate to MILGRAM?

Answer 11

• demonstrates the relationship between an authority figure and participant which reflects wider society
• HOFLING studied nurses and found that 21/22 nurses obeyed unjustified doctor demands
  so. ..
• improves the external validity of MILGRAM’s study

Question 12

EVALUATION

what did BAUMRIND say? and how does this relate to MILGRAM?

Answer 12

• critical of the ways in which the participants were deceived
  (the roles weren’t randomly allocated and the shocks weren’t real)
• psychological harm to the participants by harming another human (or thinking so)

HOWEVER…

• to combat this, MILGRAM debriefed participants and reassured them that their results were natural
  (84% said they were glad to have participated)