obedience - Milgram's research

Question 1

obedience definition

Answer 1

a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behavior is not forthcoming

Question 2

Hoffling et al study on disobedience of nurses

Answer 2

-1966
-arranged for an unknown doctor to phone 22 nurses and ask each of them alone to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list. 95% (21 out of 22) started to administer the drug (they were prevented from continuing). the nurses obeyed without question

Question 3

Rank and Jacobson 1977 nurse study

Answer 3

-replicated Hoffling et al study but altered some aspects of the original procedure that might have maximised obedience
-as an order over the phone is unusual the doctors name was known so nurses could discuss order with each other
-nurses told to admister valium a drug which they would be familar with unlike the other study
-only 2 out of 18 obeyed

Question 4

Milgram’s sample

Answer 4

40 men aged 20-50 from around New Haven USA

Question 5

how were Milgram’s sample selected

Answer 5

volunteered through a newspaper advert or mailshoot, they were paid $4.50 for participating

Question 6

outline Milgram’s procedure

Answer 6

the learner (mr wallace) was strapped into a chair and wired up with electrodes. the teacher (real participant) was given a small shock themselves. the learner had to remember a pair of words, each time he made an error, the teacher gave an increasingly strong electric shock by pressing switches on a shock machine (shocks were fake but teacher did not know this). switches were labeled from slight shock through intense shock to danger-severe shock. when the teacher got to 300V the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to next question. at 315V he pounded on the wall and was then silent for the rest of procedure. the experimenter used 4 standard prods to order the teacher to continue

Question 7

what were the 4 standard prods the experimenter used to order the teacher to continue

Answer 7

-prod 1 –> please continue/ please go one
-prod 2 –> the experiment requires that you continue
-prod 3 –> it is absolutely essential that you continue
-prod 4 –> you have no other choice, you must go one

Question 8

when was Milgram’s baseline

Answer 8

1963

Question 9

what did Milgram’s baseline assess

Answer 9

obedience levels

Question 10

how were Milgram’s findings compared

Answer 10

procedure was later adapted in variations and baseline findings were used to make comparisons

Question 11

how did Milgram decide who was teacher and who was experimenter

Answer 11

when each volunteer arrived they were introduced to another participant who was actually a confederate. they drew lots to see who would be teacher and learner, the draw was fixed so the participant was always the teacher

Question 12

who was the experimenter

Answer 12

a confederate dressed in a grey lab coat

Question 13

what did Milgram’s participants think the study was on

Answer 13

memory

Question 14

aim of Milgram’s study

Answer 14

assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter) ordered a participant (teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock (15V-450V) to a learner in a different room. the shocks were fake but the teacher did not know this

Question 15

Milgram’s baseline findings

Answer 15

-every participant delivered all shocks up to 300V
-12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300V which was an ‘intense shock’
-65% continued to the highest level of 450V so were fully obedient
-participants showed signs of extreme tension as many of them began to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands
-3 participants had seizures

Question 16

quantitative findings of Milgram’s baseline

Answer 16

-every participant delivered all shocks up to 300V
-12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300V which was an ‘intense shock’
-65% continued to the highest level of 450V so were fully obedient

Question 17

qualitative findings of Milgram’s baseline

Answer 17

-participants showed signs of extreme tension as many of them began to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands
-3 participants had seizures

Question 18

predicted results

Answer 18

-before the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict participants behaviour
-they estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V
-shows the behaviour was unexpected as students underestimated how obedient people actually are

Question 19

what were Milgram’s participants told in debrief

Answer 19

assured their behaviour was entirely normal

Question 20

in follow up questionnaire how many of Milgram’s participants were glad to participate

Answer 20

84%

Question 21

what was Milgram’s conculsion

Answer 21

concluded German people are not different. American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even though they might harm another person. he suspected certain factors of the situation may encourage obedience, so further investigated

Question 22

strength of Milgram’s research - research support

Answer 22

-Milgram’s findings were replicated in a french documentary that was made about reality TV
-the documentary (Beauvois et al 2012) focused on a game show made especially for the programme. the participants in the game believed they were contestants in a piolet episode for a new show called le jeu de la mort (the game of death). they were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (actors) in front of an audience. 80% delivered maximum shock of 460V to an apparently unconscious man. their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants- nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety. supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrates the findings were not just due to special circumstances

Question 23

limitation of Milgram’s research - low internal validity

Answer 23

-milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what it intended to test
-Milgram reported 75% thought the shocks were genuine. however, Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn’t really believe the set up, so were play acting. Perry’s 2013 research confirms this as she listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported only about half of them believed the shocks were real. 2/3 of these participants were disobedient –> suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfill aims of the study

Question 24

strength of Milgram’s study - counterpoint to low internal validity

Answer 24

-Sheridan and King 1972 conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s. Participants that were all students gave real electric shocks to a puppy in response to orders from the experimenter. despite the distress of the animal, 54% of men and 100% women gave a shock they believed to be fatal –> suggests the effects of Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when shocks were real

Question 25

limitation of Milgram’s study - alternative interpretation of findings

Answer 25

Milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
-Haslam et al 2014 showed that Milgram’s participants obeyed when the experimenter delivered the first 3 verbal prods. however, every participant given the 4th verbal prob (you have no other choice, you must go on) disobeyed. according to social identity theory, participants in Milgram’s study only obeyed when identified with the scientific aims of research. when they were blindly ordered to obey an authority figure they refused. –> shows social identity theory may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that identifying with science is a reason for obedience

Question 26

evaluation of MIlgram’s study - ethical issues

Answer 26

-participants in this study were deceived. for example, participants believed the allocation of roles as teacher or learner was random, but in fact it was fixed. he participants also believed the shocks were real. Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants
-however, Baumrind 1964 criticised for deceiving his participants. she objected because she believed that deception in psychological studies can have a serious consequences for participants and researchers

Question 27

where was Milgram’s study

Answer 27

Yale university