Social influence - situational factors affecting obedience (Milgram)

Question 1

What is meant by obedience?

Answer 1

A type of social influence whereby one person follows the orders of another (an authority figure - higher social status)

Question 2

Why did Milgram want to investigate obedience?

Answer 2

After WW2, Milgram wanted to investigate the belief that Germans had a personality defect, where they blindly obeyed and committed horrific acts. He wanted to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis

Question 3

What are the differences between obedience and conformity?

Answer 3

Obedience - direct instruction / from / one or a single / higher authority figure
Conformity - indirect instruction or request / usually from a majority group / without authority over us

Question 4

What was the aim?

Answer 4

To test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis which claimed that Germans are a highly obedient race

Question 5

What was the sample?

Answer 5

40 USA ppts. aged between 20-50 years old

Question 6

What was the rigged random allocation?

Answer 6

Confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the learner whereas the naïve ppt. was always the teacher. Experimenter was always the authority figure and wore a grey lab coat

Question 7

What false aim were the ppts. given?

Answer 7

They were told it was a study into learning and memory

Question 8

What were the details of the shock machine?

Answer 8

Teacher (ppt.) was given a small, real shock to improve realism. Each time Mr Wallace made a mistake, shock voltage rose by 15 volts. The reaction was a pre-recorded series of verbal responses that complained of a heart problem at 300 and fell silent at 330 volts

Question 9

What were the 4 prods given by the experimenter?

Answer 9

If ppt. refused to continue, experimenter gave standardised verbal prods

1. Please continue
2. The experiment requires you to continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must continue

Question 10

What did 14 psychology students predict would be the outcome of the study?

Answer 10

They predicted that no more than 3% of ppts. would continue to 450V

Question 11

What % of ppts. fully obeyed up to 450V?

Answer 11

65%

Question 12

How many ppts. stopped below 300V?

Answer 12

None

Question 13

What were the qualitative findings?

Answer 13

Many ppts. showed signs of distress (twitching, sweating, giggling, digging nails into flesh and verbally attaching experimenter) . 3 ppts. had ‘full blown seizures’

Question 14

How did Milgram attempt to cover ethical issues?

Answer 14

All ppts. were debriefed and sent a questionnaire. 84% of ppts. said they were glad they had participated

Question 15

What did the research conclude?

Answer 15

People do obey authority and go against their conscience when situational factors encourage it. German people aren’t ‘different’. These findings can help to explain the horrific acts from WW2

Question 16

What is a limitation of his research? - Low experimental realism

Answer 16

===> Perry (2013) argued many ppts. expressed doubt about authenticity of shocks after listening to original tape recordings. Orne and Holland (1968) argued lack of belief over the shocks would have led to demand characteristics and results would have lacked internal validity. However, evidence suggests even when people know electric shocks are real, they still administer them

Question 17

What is a strength of his research? - Reliable

Answer 17

===> Similar results have been achieved when real shocks were administered to an animal subject. Sheridan and King (1972) puppy electric shocks study where 54% of males and 100% of females administered what they though were fatal shocks (puppy received an anaesthetic to put it to sleep). Suggests ppts. in Milgram’s study weren’t just reacting to demand characteristics because the results were replicated with real shocks and females are more obedient than males. Must be noted this was true with animal subjects, might not be able to be generalised to human subjects

Question 18

What is a strength of his research? - High ecological validity

Answer 18

===> Despite methodological issues, Hofling et al (1966) carried out a field experiment where 21/22 nurses obeyed an unknown doctor’s telephone instruction to administer drugs over prescribed limit. Concluded that power and authority of doctors was a greater influence on nurses’ behaviour than basic hospital rules. Higher levels of ecological validity than Milgram’s as it was conducted in a real hospital setting and produced same results so Milgram’s results can be generalised

Question 19

What is a limitation of his research? - Blind obedience might not be justified

Answer 19

===> Haslam (2014) analysed the ppts.’ behaviour following the prods and found that when the fourth prod was used, ppts. were always defiant. He argued this was because the first 3 prompts made ppts. identify with scientific research aims of the study (e.g, “The experiment requires you to continue”). Differing levels of obedience can be explained by social identity theory as people were obeying orders due to identifying with the social group

Question 20

When did Milgram conduct his shock study?

Answer 20

Milgram (1961)