Social Influence - Obedience Flashcards
What did Milgram want to find an answer to?
- Stanley Milgram wanted to find an answer to the question of why such a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder over 6 million Jews in the Holocaust as well as 5 million Romani, homosexuals, black Germans, Poles and members of other social groups during the Second World War.
- He thought that one possible explanation was that Germans were different from people from other countries - perhaps they were more obedient. In order to determine this he needed a procedure which could assess how obedient people are.
What does the key term ‘obedience’ mean?
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.
What was the baseline procedure of Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience?
- 40 American men (aged 20-50 years) volunteered to take part in a study, supposedly on memory. When each volunteer arrived at Milgram’s lab he was introduced to another participant (a confederate of Milgram’s) . Men were then briefed on the purpose of the experiment which was to investigate the effect of punishment on learning. They drew lots to see who would be the ‘Teacher’ (T) and who would be the ‘Learner’ (L). The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the ‘Teacher’. An ‘Experimenter’ (E) was also involved (also a confederate, dressed in a grey lab coat). They were then taken to another room and the learner was strapped down into a chair and electrodes were attached.
- Electric shock generator was shown with a row of switches with voltages on raising from 15v-450v. Participants were told the shocks weren’t dangerous but extremely painful, they were given a 45v shock to demonstrate.
- The Learner had to remember pairs of words. Each time he made an error, the Teacher delivered a stronger (fake) ‘electric shock’ by pressing switches on the ‘shock machine’. The switches were labelled from ‘slight shock’ through ‘intense shock’ to ‘danger-severe shock’. When the Teacher got to 300 volts the Learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. At 315 volts he again pounded on the wall but was then silent for the rest of the procedure. The teacher was told silence was incorrect and to shock him. When they turned for guidance they were given verbal prods to continue. When they refused to give any more or had given the full amount the experiment was over. They were then interviewed and the experiment explained to them
Why was Milgram not breaking any official ethical guidelines during his study?
None existed - it was because of his research (and that of Zimbardo a few years later) that ethical issues became an urgent priority for psychology.
Describe the ethical guidelines that came about due to Milgram and Zimbardo’s research
All professional psychological associations publish and frequently update ethical guidance for practising psychologists and researchers. In Britain, the British Psychological Society (BPS) produces a Code of Ethics and Conduct. It addresses several issues, including: a participants right to withdraw from the research, the need to get fully informed consent from the participants, the use of deception, and the importance of protecting participants from the risk of psychological and physical harm.
How much were the participants in Milgram’s study paid for their work?
$4.50
Where were the participants in Milgram’s study found?
They were recruited through a newspaper advert or mailshot
What were the four standard ‘prods’ that the Experimenter used to order the Teacher to continue?
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’
What are the baseline findings of the Milgram study? (7)
- 100% of the participants gave 300V or more
- The average voltage given was 368V
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts (‘intense shock’)
- 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts, i.e. they were fully obedient
- Most participants showed signs of tension including groaning, sweating, biting lips and stuttering
- 14 giggled nervously
- 1 had a severe seizure so it was stopped
What did Milgram ask psychology students to do before his study?
Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’ behaviour.
Before Milgram’s study, what did psychology students predict would happen?
The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were unexpected - the students underestimated how obedient people actually are.
How were participants in Milgram’s study debriefed?
All participants in the baseline study were debriefed, where they were assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire - 84% said they were glad to have participated.
What were Milgram’s conclusions after his study?
Milgram concluded that German people are not ‘different’. The American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person. He suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these.
- People are much more obedient to destructive orders that we might expect.
- People find the experience of receiving and obeying destructive orders very stressful. They obey in spite of feeling uneasy.
- The results supported the situational hypothesis.
What are the two different approaches to explaining obedience?
- Situational hypothesis: the behavior is a result of time and place
- Dispositional hypothesis: the behavior is a result of individual factors
Name 3 examples of obedience that is explained by situational hypothesis
- Uniform
- Conformity
- Obedience
Name 3 examples of obedience that is explained by dispositional hypothesis
- Gender
- Emotions
- Feelings
Describe the obedience displayed by the Police Force Battalion 101
- In the early hours of 13th July 1942, the 500 men of the Police Force Battalion 101 (made up of family men who were too old for the army (i.e in their 30s) and we’re barely trained and stationed in Poland) were addressed by their leader. In a shaky voice with distress he told them their next assignment - to seek and kill the 1800 women and children in the nearby village.
- They were told he knew what a repugnant task some may find it.
- Anyone could stand out with no punishment.
- Results - out of 500, only 12 stood out.
- 10-20% evaded their duty.
- Many became distressed but continued with the orders.
- Quite a few showed no signs of distress
- A few seemed to enjoy it
What are 2 strengths of Milgram’s findings? (brief)
- His findings were replicated in a French documentary
- His study has further research support (Hofling et al: Hospital experiment)
Describe the aim of the 1966 Hospital experiment
To investigate obedience to authority in a real-world setting
Describe the baseline procedure of the 1966 Hospital experiment
- An unknown “doctor” (actually a confederate in the experiment) called the (real) hospital and ordered the (real) nurses to administer a dangerously high dose of a (fictional) drug to a patient. The dose was twice the maximum daily limit stated on the drug’s limit.
This breaks three rules: - They are not allowed to accept instructions over the phone.
- The dose was double the maximum limit stated on the box.
- The medicine itself was unauthorized, i.e. not on the ward stock list.
What were the results of the 1966 Hospital experiment?
21 out of 22 (95%) nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders and were about to administer the medication to the patient when a hidden observer stopped them. Only 1 questioned the identity of the researcher.
What are the conclusions of the 1966 Hospital Experiment? (4)
- Hofling et al. demonstrated that people are very unwilling to question supposed ‘authority’, even when they might have good reason to.
- When the nurses were interviewed later, they pointed out that many doctors were in the habit of giving orders by telephone and became seriously annoyed if they were not obeyed.
- Although such obedience was against regulations, the unequal power relations between doctors and nurses meant life would be very difficult if nurses did not do what they were told.
- Hofling’s study showed how the social pressure brought about by the imbalance of power could lead to a nurse actually putting a patient at risk, rather than disobeying orders.
What does the term “proximity” mean in relation to Milgram’s study of obedience?
The physical closeness of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to AND the physical closeness of the “teacher” to the “learner” in Milgram’s study.
Describe how through proximity variation, Milgram conducted different results (3)
- In Milgram’s baseline study the “teacher” could hear the “learner” but could not see him. Obedience rates were at 65%.
- In the proximity variation, Milgram put them in the same room - obedience rates fell to 40%.
- Getting them even closer, the touch proximity variation had the “teacher” forcing the learner’s hand onto an “electroshock plate” if he refused to do so himself; obedience rates dropped even further to 30%.
