Milgram's research

Question 1

Who studied situational factors affecting variables?

Answer 1

Milgram

Question 2

Who was involved in the study?

Answer 2

• 40 ppts
• volunteers ppts

Question 3

What were the ppts told?

Answer 3

Told it was a study of how punishment affects learning

Question 4

What were the two experimental confederates?

Answer 4

• an experimenter
• 47 year old man who was introduced as another volunteer ppt

Question 5

How were the ppts assigned roles?

Answer 5

• Drew lots (which was rigged) so the real ppt was always teacher and ‘fake’ ppt was learner

Question 6

How many roles were there?

Answer 6

• Experimenter
• Learner
• Teacher

Question 7

What did the teacher have to do?

Answer 7

• Test the learner on their ability to remember word pairs
• If got one wrong, administer increasingly strong electric shocks

Question 8

What did the volts start at?

Answer 8

15v up to 450v

Question 9

What happened the voice feedback study?

Answer 9

• learner gave mainly wrong answers
• received fake shocks in silence until 300v
• At this point, he pounded on the wall and gave no response to next question
• Repeated at 315v and said/did nothing
• If ‘teacher’ asked to stop, the experimenter had prods to repeat ‘You must go on’

Question 10

(Findings), What did Milgram do before the study?

Answer 10

• Before study, M asked psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict how long experiment would go on before ppt refused to continue
• consistently predicted very few would go beyond 150v and 1 in 1000 would administer 450v

Question 11

Findings of the experiment in voice feedback study

Answer 11

• 26 out of 40 (65%) continued to 450v
• Was despite the shock generator being labelled ‘Danger: Severe shock’ at 420 and ‘XXX’ at 450v

Question 12

How many ppts went to 300v?

Answer 12

100%

Question 13

How many stopped at 300v and what was this point?

Answer 13

5 (12.5%), point where learner first objected

Question 14

What was the 3 situational factors?

Answer 14

• Proximity
• Uniform
• Location

Question 15

What did the obedience levels fall to in if teacher was able to see learner?

Answer 15

fell to 40%

Question 16

What did the obedience levels fall to in the touch proximity condition?

Answer 16

30%

Question 17

How did proximity of authority figure affect obedience rate?

Answer 17

• Experimenter absence: give orders over telephone (21% continuing to max level shock)
• some give weaker shocks telling experimenter they were following correct procedure over phone

Question 18

How did location affect obedience?

Answer 18

• Several ppts said that location gave them confidence in the integrity of the people involved
• Many said they would not have shocked anywhere else
• Yale University

Question 19

What did Milgram do to test location?

Answer 19

• Moved study to run down office
• no affiliations to Yale
• 48% ppts delivering max shocks

Question 20

How did uniform affect obedience?

Answer 20

• Milgram’s base line study, experimenter wore grey lab coat
• experimenter called away, experiment taken over member of public, someone in normal clothes
• Obedience levels dropped 20%

Question 21

A03 - STRENGTH - external validity

Answer 21

• Despite being conducted in a lab it has good external validity
• shown through replication of similar obedience studies in real-life situations
• Hoffing et al studied nurses on hospital wards
• Involved ‘doctor’ asked nurses to give a potential dangerous dose of a ‘drug’ to patients
• Found 21 out of 22 nurses followed unjust demand
• Suggests despite Milgram’s research being conducted in lab, it can be generalised to other more realistic settings.
• Provides a good external validity to Milgram’s claim about obedience across different contexts

Question 22

A03 - STRENGTH - Research support

Answer 22

• Blass (1999) carried out statistical analysis of obedience studies between 1961 and 1985.
• By carrying out correlational analysis relating each study’s year and the amount of obedience found. Found no relationship whatsoever
• i.e. the later studies found no more or less obedience than the ones conducted earlier
• More recent study by Burger found levels of obedience almost identical to those found by Milgram some 46 years later
• Milgram has temporal validity, findings can be applied to research today

Question 23

A03 - WEAKENESS - Low internal validity

Answer 23

• Orne and Holland claimed that ppts in psychological studies have learnt to distrust experimenters because they know the true purpose of study is being hidden
• Perry found Milgram’s ppts had been sceptical at the time whether the shocks were real
• Milgram’s assistant, Murata divided ppts in ‘doubters’ and ‘believers’
• Latter more likely to disobey and only give low intensity shocks
• findings challenge M’s validity and suggests that when faced with the reality of destructive obedience, ppl more likely to disobey an authority figure

Question 24

A03 - LIMITATION - obedience alibi

Answer 24

• M’s study provides ‘obedience alibi’
• Mandel argues the conclusions M draws offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour
• In his view, it is offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazi’s were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control
• Is an issue because such claims have negative implications on society in which horrific crimes are excused
• Therefore need be careful generalising the conclusions of M’s research due to social sensitivity.