supporting obedience (Milgram 1963) and variations

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

Investigate the level of obedience when told by an authority to administer electric shocks.

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

40 participants all aged 20-50, were recruited through volunteer sampling through a newspaper ad.

Question 3

Dv

Answer 3

The highest shock voltage each participant would go to out of 450v.

Question 4

Procedure

Answer 4

-Lab experiment.
-ppt sat in room w confederate thought to be another ppt. lot drawn to decide who was teacher an learner. fixed allocation so ppt was always teacher.
-Teacher taken to another room, given test shock of 45v then generator started at 15v going up in 15v intervals up to 450v.
-teacher read words followed by four options for a second work pair.
-if learner was wrong, experimenter orders them to deliver shock.
-learners answers we pre-set and cries of pain were pre-recorded.
-pressured to continue using any of four pre- scripted prods.

Question 5

results

Answer 5

• 5/40 subjects refused to obey the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt. w two going to 330 then one each at 345, 360 and 375v. Thus a total of 14 subjects defied the experimenter.
  -26/40 went up to 450v
  -all ppts went up to 300v
  -Those who went the full way demonstrated extreme stress, sweating, trembling and stuttered speech.

Question 6

Generalisability

Answer 6

-volunteers have more compliant traits, more likely to be obedient, listen to instructions and take the procedure seriously. representative of obedience in real life.
- however sample is ethnocentric so does not represent obedience in other cultures and regions.

Question 7

reliability

Answer 7

standardised procedure and can be easily replicated as the shocks went up in 15v increments and there are pre-scripted prods, tape-recorded responses. fixed allocation allowed ppt to always be teacher.

Question 8

validity

Answer 8

-difficult to know that ppts may have been aware that they weren’t administrating real shocks and just playing along. But milligram discussed anxiety clear in the experiment and that only 2/40 ppts in experiment 2 thought study was a hoax. could be claiming this to clear conscience/ defend behaviour.
-task validity, task does not accurately reflect obedience in real world situations such as in the workplace.

Question 9

ethics

Answer 9

-deception, ppts did not know the true aims and led to believe it was art the effect of punishment on learning. however was justified from useful applications to society, avoid demand characteristics.
-protection from harm, ppts became traumatised from the thought of administering a shock, showed signs of distress such as sweating trembling, stuttering, groaning.
right to withdraw, although ppts could withdraw and disobey if they wanted, the experimenter prods made it difficult.
-debriefing, interviewed after to make sure there were no negative affects and made sure they saw the learner to see he was ok and aims of study were explained.

Question 10

Application

Answer 10

the study demonstrates how obedience to authority works, took place in a top university, and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools or prisons.