Social Influence- Obedience: Milgram’s Research Flashcards
Definition of obedience
A form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order.
Person issuing said order is usually a person in authority
Aim of Milgram’s Study (1963)
To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an order to inflict pain on an innocent person.
Procedure
- his sample of 40 American male volunteers (from a newspaper advert/flyers) were told they were taking part in a memory/learning study
-ps drew lots for their role as either a teacher or learner. Their was a rigged draw, so that the ps would always get the role of teacher and were instructed to give an electric shock of increasing strength (from 15v-450v) to the learner (a confederate- Mr Wallace) every time he made a mistake on a list of word pairs. An experimenter sat in the room with the teacher and wore a lab coat.
-the learner was in a separate room, strapped to the chair and wired with electrodes
-at 300v the learner could be heard complaining, but after that there were no further responses. The experiment continued until either the ps refused to continue, or the maximum if 450v was reached
-ps were told they could leave the study at any point, however if they tried to stop, the experimenter would offer a verbal prod, e.g the experiment requires that you continue, please continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue and you have no other choice, you must go on.
Findings
-Milgram found that all ps went to 300v, five (12.5%) stopped at 300v and 65% administered the full 450v
-Qualitative data was also collected- 3 ps had full blown uncontrollable seizures, showed signs of extreme distress and tension: sweating, shaking, stuttering, biting lips, signing fingernails into skin.
Conclusion
-prior to study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the naive ps behaviour. Estimated that no more than 3% of ps would continue to 450v. Therefore, findings were unexpected
-ps were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was normal. In a follow up questionnaire, 84% reported they felt glad to have participated and 74% felt they have learnt something of personal importance
Strengths of original study (AO3)
-good external validity- Milgram argued lab based relationship between experimenter and ps reflected wider real-life authority relationships.Holing et al (1966) found that levels of obedience in nurses at a hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21 out of 22 nurses obeyed). This is a strength because it means the process of obedience in Milgram’s study can be generalised to real world setting-ecological validity
-supporting replication- (the game of death) is a documentary about reality tv (2010)- replication of Milgram’s study- 80% ps administered max shock of 460v
Limitation of original study (AO3)
-broke several ethical guidelines- Milgram deceived ps as they believed they were taking part in a study on how punishment affects learning, rather than on obedience. They were also deceived by the rigging of the role allocation that was in fact pre-determined. Due to the nature of the task, Milgram did not protect the ps from psychological harm, since many of the ps showed signs of distress and many felt guilty after the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another human being. This is a limitation because these breaches could have cause severe damage to the reputation of psychology and jeopardise future research
-lacks ecological validity- this is because the study was conducted in a laboratory setting, which may be different to real life situations of obedience. In everyday life we tend to obey far more harmless instructions, rather than giving people electric shocks. As a result, we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions to the same degree
-lacks population validity- Milgram used a biased sample of 40 male American volunteers from a broadly individualistic society. Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, particularly collectivist cultures, or to explain the behaviour of females since it cannot be concluded that those with other cultural experiences, or female ps would respond in a similar way to that observed in Milgram’s original study. Only using male ps shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to the conclusions drawn regarding the obedience to authority and can be criticised as androcentric. This is a limitation as results cannot be generalised to females are therefore are not representative of the entire population. Sheridan and King (1972)- administer electric shocks to puppy- 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
- social identity theory- obedience lies in group identification. Ps identified with the experimenter (the science of the study). When obedience fell ps identified less with the science and more with the victim. Haslam and Reicher (2012) analysed behaviour of ps in Milgram’s study. First three prods don’t demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science. The fourth prod ( you have no other choice, you must go on) demands obedience. Every time 4th prod was used ps quit.
Situational variables affecting obedience
-proximity
-location
-uniform
What is a situational variable
External circumstances /factors that influenced the level of obedience
Proximity variation
In a proximity variation where the teacher and the learner were in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40% of those who administered 450V.
In a remote-instruction proximity variation: the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience rate dropped to 20.5%- the ps frequently pretended to administer the shock or gave a lower voltage shock when they were ordered to.
Touch proximity variation- the teacher had to force the learners hand on to a shock plate. Obedience levels dropped to 30%.
This shows that proximity affects obedience in two ways 1) the closer the person is to an authority figure they more likely they are to obey. 2) the closer the person is so the sequence of their actions, the less likely they are to obey.
Location variation
Milgram conducted the original research in a laboratory of Yale University. In order to test the power of the location, Milgram conducted a variation in a rundown building. Obedience fell from 65% to 47.5% this indicates that the experimenter had less authority in this setting and highlighted the importance of location in creating a prestigious atmosphere generating respect and obedience
Uniform variation
The experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call right at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience rate dropped to 20% the lowest of these variations. This suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol and cue to behave in an obedient manner, however it is unclear from this variation alone whether the uniform in the contributing factor or whether the experimenter also appears more legitimate due to his social status and role.
Situation variables strengths (AO3)
-supporting research- Bickmans (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York City to look at the effect of authority on obedience where confederates stood on the street and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task such as picking up a piece of litter or providing a coin for the parking meter. The outfit that the confederate was wearing varied from a smart suit, jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guard’s uniform. It was found that people were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket/tie confederate. This is a strength because it supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is a situational variable which increases obedience.
-high control of variables- Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience. Other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 ps. This is a strength because it shows a cause and effect relationship and means that there is more certainty that the changes in obedience were caused by the variable manipulated and not some extraneous variables.
Situation variables limitations (AO3)
-lacks population validity- it cannot be generalised to other cultures. It has been suggested by other research that factors such as culture affect obedience. Kilman and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s original study in Australia but found that only 16% of the ps shocked the learner at the maximum voltage level of 450v whereas Mantell (1971), replicated the procedure in Germany and found 85% obedience and Miranda et al (1981) used Spanish students and found over 90% obedience. This cross-cultural comparison shows that different societies follow alternative hierarchical structures and children may be socialised differently from a young age to be more, or less, obedient. As Smith and Bond (1998) noted replications taken place in Western societies (Spain and Germany) and are culturally not that different from the USA and the fire the same results are expected. This is a limitation because it suggests that while situational factors like uniform and proximity are important, other factors may play a more significant role in obedient behaviour.
-lacks internal validity- Orne and Holland (1968) suggested ps in Milgram’s variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was fake because of the extra experimental manipulation. In the variation where ‘a member of the public’ replaced the experimenter, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some ps may have worked it out. This is a limitation because it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the ps saw the deception and ‘play acted’.
