social influence- obedience- Milgram, dispositional explanations Flashcards
work smarter, and try to understand
define obedience
an individual follows a direct order
- the person issuing the order tends to be a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming
what was the aim of Milgram’s study?
To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when
told to harm another person i.e. evaluating the influence of a
destructive authority figure.
how many ppts took part in Milgram’s study?
Randomly selected participants - 40 male volunteers.
describe the procedure of Milgram’s study
A participant given the role of ‘teacher’ and a confederate given the
role of ‘learner’. This was decided through a random allocation.
Participant had to ask the confederate a series of questions.
Whenever the confederate got the answer wrong, the participant
had to give him an electric shock, even when no answer was given.
The electric shocks incremented by 15 volts at a time, ranging from
300V to 450V, where 330V was marked as ‘lethal’.
Participants thought the shocks were real when in fact there were
no real shocks administered, and the confederate was acting. The
shocks were falsely demonstrated to be real prior to the start of the
study.
Participants were assessed on how many volts they were willing to
shock the confederate with.
The experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders / prods when
the participant refused to administer a shock, which increased in
terms of demandingness for every time the participant refused to
administer a shock. The same 4 prods were used each time when
participants refused to administer the shocks. The first 3 demanded
obedience to science, whereas the final prod demanded obedience
specifically to the confederate.
what were the findings in Milgram’s study?
All participants went up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V. No
participants stopped below 300V, whilst only 12.5% stopped at
300V, showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared
to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
All the ppts were debriefed, and were assured that their behaviour was normal. The follow up questionaire, 84% reported that they felt glad they took part.
factors affecting obedience
how does proximity affect levels of obedience?
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same
room i.e. 65%.
This was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms, and reduced to a further
30% in the touch proximity condition i.e. where the experimenter
forcibly placed the participant’s hand on the electric plate.
In the remote instruction condition, obedience fell to 20.5% when the experimenter gave instructions over the phone
factors affecting obedience
how did the location in Milgram’s study affect obedience?
Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university i.e. Stanford. This is because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their
experiments.
He also used a run-down building rather than Yale, in which the experiment had less authority and obedience fell to 47.5%
factors affecting obedience- milgram
how did uniform affect levels of obedience?
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat. A
person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy. It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab
coat as opposed to normal clothes. However, demand characteristics
were particularly evident in this condition, with even Milgram admitting
that many participants could see through this deception.
the obedience rate dropped to 20%- lowest of all the variations
AO3- what are the strengths of debriefing in Milgram’s study?
The participants were thoroughly and carefully debriefed on the real aims of the study, in an attempt to deal with
the ethical breach of the guideline of protection from deception and
the possibility to give informed consent. In a follow up study
conducted a year later, 84% of participants were glad they were
part of the study and 74% felt as if they learned something. This suggests that the study left little or no permanent or long-term psychological harm on ppts.
AO3- strengths of real life applications of Milgram’s study
This research opened our eyes to the
problem of obedience and so may reduce future obedience in
response to destructive authority figures e.g. obedience has
resulted in negative social change - the Nazis obeyed orders and as
a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted and what he wanted
was not what the majority of people wanted. Such research also
gives an insight into why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews
simply when told to, and so highlights how we can all easily be
victims to such pressures. A general awareness of the power of
such influences is useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours.
AO3- strengths of high internal validity in Milgram’s study
Gina Perry reviewed the interview tapes and found that a significant number of participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the electric shocks. However, quantitative
data gathered by Milgram directly suggested that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were real - these findings appear plausible when considering that 100% of the females used in Sheridan and King’s study administered real electric shocks to
puppies. This suggests that although the findings were certainly surprising, they were also likely to be accurate.
AO3- strengths of cross- cultural replications in Milgram’s study
P= One strength of Milgram’s research, inc his variations, is that they have been replicated in other cultures
E= Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with Dutch ppts, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees.
E= They found 90% obedience, and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present).
L= This shows that Milgram’s findings are not limited to just American males but are valid across all cultures
AO3- counterpoint- Milgram’s study
However, Smith & Bond (1998) make the crucial points that most replications have taken place in western, developed societies. These are not culturally not that different to the USA.
As such, it would be premature to conclude that MIlgram’s findings about proximity,location and uniform apply to ppl everywhere.
AO3- strength of external validity on Milgram’s study
Hofling et al (1966) observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses
in a natural experiment (covert observation). The researchers
found that 95% of nurses in a hospital obeyed a doctor (confederate) over the phone to increase the dosage of a patient’s medicine to double what is advised on the bottle. This suggests that ‘everyday’ individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive
authority figures.
AO3- weakness of ethical issues in Milgram’s study
There was deception and so informed consent could not be
obtained. This deception was justified by the aim of avoiding
demand characteristics/ the ‘Please-U’ effect/ participant reactivity
(where participants change their behaviour in response to knowing
that they are being observed).
- There was psychological harm inflicted upon the participants - They
showed signs of psychological and physiological distress such as
trembling, sweating and nervous laughter. Such findings were also
replicated in the Jeu de la Mort study, showing that these results were
not simps due to participant variables/differences.
- It raises a socially sensitive issue – Milgram’s findings suggest thatthose who are responsible for killing innocent people can be excused because it is not their personality that made them do this, but it is because of the situation that they were in and the fact that it is difficult to disobey – some may strongly disagree with this, and especially the judicial system, where (except in viable cases of diminished
responsibility), individuals are expected to take moral responsibility for
their actions.
