Obedience Flashcards
Migram’s baseline procedure
Obedience
40 USA men volunteered to take part in study, supposedly on memory
When each volunteer arrived at Milgram’s lab he was introduced to a confed
They drew lots to see who would be Teacher (T) & Learner (L)
Draw was fixed so ppt was always T
Experimenter E was involved (also confed)
Study aimed to assess obedience in situation where authority fugure (E) ordered ppt (T) to give increasingly strong shocks to L in diff room (in 15-volt steps to 450 volts)
Shocks were fake but ppt did not know this
Milgram’s baseline findigs
Obedience
Every ppt delivered all shocks up to 300 volts
12.5% stopped at 300 volts & 65% continued to 450 volts
Milgram also collected qualitative data including observations such as: ppt showed signs of extreme tension; many were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite lips & dig fingernails into hands
3 had uncontrollable seizures
Milgram’s other data
Obedience
Before study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict ppts behaviour
They estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts
Shows findings were unexpected - students underestmated obedience
All ppts were debreifed & assured their behaviour was entirely normal
They were sent follow-up questionnaire - 84% said they were glad to have participated
Milgram’s conclusions
Obedience
Milgram concluded that German people are not ‘different’
USA ppts in study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm others
He suspected there were certain factors in situation that encouraged obedience (situational variables)
Evaluation - Research support
Obedience
Strength - findings replicated in French documentary made about reality TV
Beauvois et al’s documentary (2012) focused on a made up game show
Ppts believed they were contestants on pilot episode of new show (Le Jeu de la Mort)
They were paid to give fake electric shocks ordered by presenter to other ppts (actors) in front of auidence
80% of ppts delivered max shock of 460 volts to ‘unconscious’ man
Behaviour almost identical to Milgram’s ppts - nervous laughter, nail biting & other signs of anxiety
There4, supports Milgram’s og findings about obedience to authority & demonstrates that findings were not just due to circumstances
Evaluation - Low internal validity
Obedience
Limit - procedure may not have been testing what it intended to test
Milgram reported that 75% of ppts said they believed shocks were real
However, Orne & Holland (1968) argued that ppts behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe in setup, they were play-acting
Perry’s (2013) research confirms this
She listened to tapes of Milgram’s ppts and reported only half of them believed shocks were real
2/3 of these ppts were disobedient
There4, ppts may have been responding to demand characteristics
Evaluation - Low internal validity (Counterpoint)
Obedience
However, Sheridan & King (1972) conducted study using procedure like Milgram’s
Ppts (all students) gave real shocks to puppy in response to orders
Despite real distress of animals, 54% of men & 100% of women gave what they thought was fatal shock
There4, effects of Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when shocks were real
Evaluation - Alternative interpretation of findings
Obedience
Limit - Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
Haslam et al (2014) showed that Milgram’s ppts obeyed when E delievered first 3 verbal prods
However, every ppt who was given 4th (‘You have no other choice, you must go on’) without exception disobeyed
According to social identity theory (SIT), ppts in Milgram’s study only obeyed when they indentified w/ scientific aims of research
When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused
There4, SIT may provide more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that ‘identifying w/ the science’ is a reason for obedience
