SOCIAL: Milgram (1963) Flashcards
The aim?
To investigate the tendency to obey DESTRUCTIVE orders from individuals in positions of AUTHORITY.
What are destructive orders?
Orders that lead to harming others
Why did Milgram carry out this study?
- Milgram was affected by NAZIs who displayed people obeying destructive orders
- Early psychological research focused on a DISPOSITIONAL hypothesis: something distinctive about GERMAN CULTURE/PERSONALITY led to high levels of conformity and obedience of destructive orders.
but Milgram was interested in the SOCIAL PROCESSES that take place between individuals and within groups so looks as SITUATIONAL HYPOTHESIS -> the effect of social processes depending on the SITUATION rather than the characteristics of the individual.
What did Milgram do PRIOR to procedure?
He told 14 psychology yale students about his procedure and they estimated that only 1.2% of participants would obey the orders and give ALL 450v shocks.
The design of the study?
Milgram described it as “LABORATORY experiment”
BUT
only had 1 condition so actually a PRE-EXPERIMENT
and so results served as baseline for other followup studies.
What was the DEPENDENT variable; how was it operationalised?
OBEDIENCE
operationalised by measuring the MAX VOLTAGE given in response to the orders.
What was the INDEPENDENT variable?
NONE.
only 1 condition hence why it is a PRE-EXPERIMENT
How many PARTICIPANTS?
40 MEN
- all from NEW HAVEN district of north america
- aged 20-50yrs old
- Range of jobs (manual labourers; white collar workers; professionals)
How were the participants recruited?
VOLUNTEER / SELF-SELECTING SAMPLE
-newspaper advertisement: promised $4.50 but made clear it was only for SHOWING UP not completing.
Where did the study take place?
Yale university
What machine was used?
An electric shock generator
-15V to 450V in 15V increments
What happened after participants arrived at Yale university?
Introduced to a man they believed was another participant and the two men were briefed on the SUPPOSED purpose of the experiment.
They were then given the role of a teacher/learner through a FIXED LOTTERY where the participant was always the teacher.
‘Learner’ was strapped to machine.
What was the SUPPOSED aim of the study?
To investigate the EFFECT OF PUNISHMENT ON LEARNING
Who was the CONFEDERATE / STOOGE?
MR WALLACE a 47yr old man working for milgram.
A likeable mild mannered accountant.
What was the participant told about the shocks?
That they were extremely painful but NOT dangerous.
They were given a 45V shock demonstration
Who was in what room?
The learner and teacher were in separate rooms but could talk/hear each other.
Experiment was in same room as teacher-participant.
Who was the experimenter?
THE ‘AUTHORITY’ figure
played by a 31yr old male biology teacher
What did the participant have to do?
Read out WORD PAIRS to test the confederate-learner.
Each time learner got it wrong, experimenter ordered teacher to give a shock.
Shock got larger by 15V each time
Learner got 3 wrong for every 1 right.
What did the confederate-learner during the shocks?
He wasn’t really strapped in-> recording:
-no responses until 300V & 315V pounded the wall suggesting he was hurt or unconscious
What did the experimenter do when the teacher-participant turned for guidance when the learner did not respond to next word pair?
The experimenter told them to treat it as wrong and give another shock.
What happened when the teacher-participant protested?
experimenter gave verbal prods to encourage them to continue.
When was the procedure considered to be finished?
When the participant refused to give any more shocks or when they gave all 450V.
What happened after the procedure was completed?
Participants were interviewed and asked to rate on a scale of 0-14 how painful the last few shocks they gave were and dehoaxed and told real purpose of study.
What type of data was gathered?
BOTH quantitative and qualitative
How was data gathered?
By the experimenter in the room and by people watching through a one way mirror.
In what form was qualitative data gathered?
Quote some.
The comments and protests made during procedure / body language
eg.
- 14 GIGGLED
- 1 SEVERE SEIZURE and procedure was stopped
- groaning, sweating, biting lip
- most people protested by verbal prods were sufficient to get them to continue
In what form was quantitative data gathered?
Quote some.
the average voltage that participants went up to
and the number of participants giving each voltage.
eg.
-100% gave up to 300V or more
-65% gave all 450V
-Average rating of how painful shock was = 13.42 out of 14
What 2 conclusions were made AND how were they supported?
- People are MORE obedient to destructive order than we might expect.
-QUANTITATIVE DATA of the estimated 1.2% vs 65% 450v - People find the experience of receiving and obeying destructive orders HIGHLY STRESSFUL.
QUALITATIVE DATA showing the conflict between 2 deeply ingrained tendencies: obeying authoritative figure vs not to harm people.
Do results support Dispositional or situational hypothesis?
Situational
Give the 9 factors Milgram gave to explain the high levels of obedience.
- Carried out in YALE UNIVERSITY = top uni
- Aim of study appears to be a WORTHWHILE AIM
- Learner appears to have VOLUNTEERED and so obligation to experimenter.
- Teacher also VOLUNTEERED also obliged feeling.
- From teacher perspective, he could have equally gotten the role of learner so LESS GUILTY.
- Payment -> feel obliged.
- Rights to WITHDRAW was not obvious and VERBAL PRODS discouraged the right.
- Participants assured shocks were NOT DANGEROUS.
- Learner appeared comfortable for 300V
Why is having both quantitative and qualitative data a STRENGTH?
a more accurate conclusion was able to be made.
without qualitative data no conclusion of highly stressed.
What ethical issues were raised?
- no informed consent.
- deceived about several things.
- discouraged right to withdraw via verbal prods
- caused participants considerable stress
BUT argued:
- necessary to deceive and was thoroughly debriefed at earliest opportunity
- distressed only for a short time -> left happy and glad they took part.
Why does this study lack ecological validity?
artificial task and environment.
not an everyday situation
Was it reliable?
Yes.
already been replicated many times therefore the study is consistent with results.
What was wrong with the sampling?
SAMPLING BIAS
- all men
- all from new haven district
- volunteer sample: same type of people
