Milgram Study Flashcards

1
Q

Aim of the study

A
  • to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when PPs were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Research method

A
  • controlled observation
  • study only has a DV (dependent variable)
  • NOT A LAB EXPERIMENT
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Subjects (mention 7 points)

A
  • 40 participants
  • males
  • ages 20 to 50
  • obtained by newspaper advertisement + direct mail solicitation (VOLUNTEER SAMPLING)
  • paid: $4.50
  • range of PPs: high school teachers, engineers, salesmen, laborers, etc
  • education level: haven’t finished elementary school —-> doctorates/professional degrees
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Procedure

A
  • done at Yale University
  • experiment took place in lab setting designed to look like a learning/memory test environment
  • when PP arrived, roles were assigned as ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’
    -learner was strapped to chair in adjacent room with electrodes attached and received shocks
  • teacher was shown a shock generator with switches from 15-450V
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Sample shock (mention 4 points)

A
  • 45 volts
  • applied to wrist
  • pressing 3rd switch
  • source was 45-volt battery
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Dependent variables (DV)

A
  • max shock level applied to learner by PP (0 to 30 – 15V to 450V)
  • defiant & obedient participant
  • occasional photos taken through one-way mirror
  • notes kept on unusual behavior
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Controls (mention 10 points)

A
  • standardized procedure
  • learning task
  • response schedule
  • volt increments
  • setting
  • prods
  • preliminary run
  • sample shock
  • instructions
  • experimenter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Preliminary notions

A
  • 14 Yale students asked to predict how many PPs would go up to 450V
  • considerable agreement between students
  • estimated range = 0-3%
  • class mean = 1.2%
  • colleagues of Milgram felt very few would go beyond “Very Strong Shock”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Learning task

A
  • paired-associate learning task
  • subject read series of word pairs to learner
  • read first 1st word pair along with 4 terms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Shock generator.

A
  • 30 lever switches
  • 15V to 450V
  • 15-volt increment going left to right on switch
  • switch increments:
    1. slight shock
    2. moderate shock
    3. strong shock
    4. very strong shock
    5. intense shock
    6. extreme intensity shock
    7. danger: severe shock
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Shock instructions

A
  • subject told to administer shock to learner each time wrong response is given
  • instructed to move one level higher every time wrong response is given
  • instructed to announce voltage level before administering shock
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

De-hoax/debriefing

A
  • PPs were interviewed
  • open-ended questions asked
  • projective measures taken
  • attitude scales given to score
  • friendly reconciliation between learner + teacher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Results (quanti)

A
  • subjects were convinced of the reality of experimental situation
  • potent shocks were very painful
  • mode response = 14
  • mean = 13.42
  • 14 of 40 showed signs of nervous laughter and smiling
  • 3 subjects - uncontrollable seizures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Results (quali)

A
  • post-experimental interview: “How painful to the learner were the last few shocks that you administered to him?”
  • 14-point scale from “not at all painful” to “extremely painful”.
  • subjects reaction = sweat, tremble, stutter, biting lip, groaning, etc
  • violent seizure caused experiment to stop
  • 46 yr old encyclopedia was embarrassed
  • subjects said they weren’t sadistic and laughing didn’t mean they enjoyed shocking PPs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Reliability

A
  • scripts
  • standardized procedure
  • controls: prods, sample shock, grey coat, voltage increments, setting
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Methodological strengths & weaknesses

A

STRENGTHS:
- high reliability
- standardized procedure
- volunteer sampling

WEAKNESSES:
- low generalizability
- volunteer sampling
- low eco validity
- low mundane realism