Social Influence - Obedience

Question 1

What did Milgram want to find an answer to?

Answer 1

• 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.

Question 2

What does the key term ‘obedience’ mean?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

What was the baseline procedure of Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience?

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

Why was Milgram not breaking any official ethical guidelines during his study?

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Describe the ethical guidelines that came about due to Milgram and Zimbardo’s research

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

How much were the participants in Milgram’s study paid for their work?

Answer 6

$4.50

Question 7

Where were the participants in Milgram’s study found?

Answer 7

They were recruited through a newspaper advert or mailshot

Question 8

What were the four standard ‘prods’ that the Experimenter used to order the Teacher to continue?

Answer 8

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’

Question 9

What are the baseline findings of the Milgram study? (7)

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

What did Milgram ask psychology students to do before his study?

Answer 10

Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’ behaviour.

Question 11

Before Milgram’s study, what did psychology students predict would happen?

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

How were participants in Milgram’s study debriefed?

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

What were Milgram’s conclusions after his study?

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

What are the two different approaches to explaining obedience?

Answer 14

• Situational hypothesis: the behavior is a result of time and place
• Dispositional hypothesis: the behavior is a result of individual factors

Question 15

Name 3 examples of obedience that is explained by situational hypothesis

Answer 15

• Uniform
• Conformity
• Obedience

Question 16

Name 3 examples of obedience that is explained by dispositional hypothesis

Answer 16

• Gender
• Emotions
• Feelings

Question 17

Describe the obedience displayed by the Police Force Battalion 101

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

What are 2 strengths of Milgram’s findings? (brief)

Answer 18

• His findings were replicated in a French documentary
• His study has further research support (Hofling et al: Hospital experiment)

Question 19

Describe the aim of the 1966 Hospital experiment

Answer 19

To investigate obedience to authority in a real-world setting

Question 20

Describe the baseline procedure of the 1966 Hospital experiment

Answer 20

• 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.

Question 21

What were the results of the 1966 Hospital experiment?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

What are the conclusions of the 1966 Hospital Experiment? (4)

Answer 22

• 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.

Question 23

What does the term “proximity” mean in relation to Milgram’s study of obedience?

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Describe how through proximity variation, Milgram conducted different results (3)

Answer 24

• 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%.

Question 25

Why did levels of obedience increase when proximity between the teacher and learner decreased in Milgram’s study?

Answer 25

Because proximity (as in the baseline study) allows the “teacher” to psychologically distance himself from the consequences of his actions (i.e. pain to the “learner” - the closer they are the harder it is for him to do so

Question 26

Describe how obedience levels fell in Milgram’s study after the experiment was carried out in a rundown office block

Answer 26

• Yale University - the original location for Milgram’s studies - is a highly prestigious US university. When Milgram carried out a variation of this study in a run-down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%.
• WHY?
• Because the university location gave his study legitimacy and authority, and hence the experimenter also had this legitimacy and authority where obedience could be expected from participants.
• Even in the run-down office block obedience levels were still quite high because the experimenter was still “a scientist” and they knew it was being run by the university.

Question 27

In the baseline Milgram study, what did the experimenter wear?

Answer 27

A grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a scientist).

Question 28

Describe how uniform in Milgram’s study had an effect on obedience levels

Answer 28

• In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority.
• In a further variation, Milgram arranged for the experimenter to be “called away” by a phone call at the start of the procedure and for a confederate in everyday clothes to take over. Obedience rates dropped to only 20%.
• WHY?
• Because uniforms are symbols of authority; a scientist’s lab coat is their “uniform” and signified academic rigor and respectability. We accept someone in such a uniform is entitled to expect our obedience as their authority is legitimate (i.e. granted and recognized by society). The person in the everyday clothes had no such legitimacy.

Question 29

Research support for Milgram’s study: Describe the Bickman study (1974)

Answer 29

• Bickman study (1974) - 3 confederates: security guard, milkman, man in jacket & tie
• Asked passers-by to pick up litter/give a coin for parking meter
• Results: 2x obedience rates for security guard than the other 2
• Study provides supporting evidence for Milgram’s conclusion about the legitimacy of uniform

Question 30

One strength is that Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary. Describe this documentary.

Answer 30

• This documentary (Beauvois et al. 2012) focused on a game show made especially for the program. The participants in the ‘game’ believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show called Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death). They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (who were actually actors) in front of a studio audience.
• 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behavior was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants - nervous laughter, nail-biting, and other signs of anxiety.
• This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances.

Question 31

Describe how Milgram’s study had low internal validity

Answer 31

• One limitation is that Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.
• Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine. However Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up, so they were ‘play-acting’. Gina Perry’s (2013) research confirms this. She listened into tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that only about half of them believed the shocks were real. Two/thirds of these participants were disobedient. This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfill the aims of the study.