Obedience 1.1.2 exp 7,10,13

Question 1

exp 7 Aims?

Answer 1

Milgram states that presence of the experimenter following initial instructions could explain ‘relative insensitivity’of pp to victim

Question 2

How does the exp 7 aim differ from the original?

Answer 2

To investigate level of obedience when the experimenter isn’t present due to giving instructions over a phone.

Question 3

exp 7 Sample?

Answer 3

40 males

Question 4

exp 7 Briefly describe the procedure of the telephonic instructions variation.

Answer 4

Changed condition so after intial instructions the experimenter left lab + gave instructions via telephone
Exp only reappeared when pps disobeyed instructions

Question 5

exp 7 Results?

Answer 5

Obedience decr 9/40 pp 20.5% administered 450V

Question 6

exp 7 Conclusions?

Answer 6

Lower obedience levels due to lack of experimenter and so stress/pressure from being watched.
> administered lower shocks than were required + never informed experimenter of their deviation, told exp on telephone that they were administering shock levels in accordance w exp orders but continued to administer lowest

Question 7

exp 10 Aim?

Answer 7

Milgram though that social setting in which an event takes place can influence level of obedience displayed

Question 8

How does the aim differ from the original in the ‘run down office block’ variation?

Answer 8

To investigate level of obedience in relation to the setting that the orders from authority are being given.

Question 9

exp 10 Sample?

Answer 9

40 males

Question 10

Briefly describe the procedure of the office block variation.

Answer 10

Study equipment moved from lab@Yale (which was regarded highly due to being at prestigious uni) to 3 room office building in Bridgeport.
> Study procedure was same as original variation though!!!
If pps questioned professionalism of study, they were informed it was private firm
Some pps = skeptic towards experimenter’s intentions, comments incl ‘Should I quit this damn test?’

Question 11

exp 10 Results?

Answer 11

Pps more relaxed behaviour that in Yale,only 47.5% carried out 450V, 2 pps refused to give lowest 15V shocks

Question 12

exp 10 Conclusions?

Answer 12

Setting does affect obedience in pps but not as M believed, led him to believe that pps viewing any setting to be a scientific lab to be enough to believe that experimenter was competent

Question 13

exp 13 Aims?

Answer 13

Investigate the impact on obedience when replacing the experimenter(authority figure) w an ordinary man (no lab coat)

Question 14

exp 13 sample?

Answer 14

20 male pps

Question 15

Briefly describe the procedure of the ordinary man variation.

Answer 15

• There is a teacher and learner (the first confederate) as in the original but the experimenter does not tell the teacher to increase the voltage
• A rigged phone call then calls the experimenter away and he acts eager to leave but tells the others to continue
• The confederate timing things then announces he has a good idea, to increase the level of shocks by 15V for every wrong answer/ confederate takes control
• 13a: If pps left; put into new situation where confederate acted disgusted and took over administering shocks to learner to see how pps would react

Question 16

exp 13 + 13a results?

Answer 16

16/20 left the experiment (80%)
- The 16 in the new situation would protest against the confederates actions, 5 used physical means (13a results)

Question 17

exp 13/13a Conclusions?

Answer 17

Ppl are less likely to obey those who aren’t legitimate authority figures(ordinary man had no lab coat/symbol of authority)