Obedience: Milgram's Research

Question 1

What was the aim of Milgram’s research?

Answer 1

To see whether Americans were willing to obey unjust orders from authority figures, just as the Germans did in the holocaust.

Question 1

How were PPTs deceived in Milgram’s study when told the aim?

Answer 1

They were told that the aim was to see how punishment affects learning.

Question 2

How many American males took part?

Answer 2

40

Question 3

What type of sampling did Milgram use and how?

Answer 3

Volunteer sampling. He placed an advert in a newspaper looking for volunteers, offering $4.50 for their time.

Question 4

Describe the role of confederates in Milgram’s study. How was the role of teacher and learner assigned?

Answer 4

Real PPTs met another PPT (confederate) and a draw was done to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner, but it was always fixed so the real participant would always be the teacher.
The experimenter was also a confederate.

Question 5

Why did the experimenter (another confederate) wear a lab coat?

Answer 5

To show authority.

Question 6

Describe the procedure of Milgram’s study.

Answer 6

The teacher read out words to the learner.
If the learner got the words wrong or remained silent when repeating them back, the teacher would have to give an electric shock to the learner.

Question 7

Why might PPTs have experienced psychological harm during the study?

Answer 7

They believed they were generally hurting the learner, but the shocks were fake.

Question 8

What voltage did the shocks begin at?

Answer 8

15v

Question 9

By how many volts did shocks increase by each time?

Answer 9

15 volt increments

Question 10

What is the maximum voltage that PPTs were able to give shocks to?

Answer 10

450v

Question 11

Why were the learners (confederates) hidden behind a wall?

Answer 11

So the real PPT could not see the confederates emotions.

Question 12

What is a prod?

Answer 12

Words to encourage the PPT to continue shocking the learner used when the PPT questions the morals of the study.

Question 13

How many times were PPTs prodded before the experiment was terminated?

Answer 13

A maximum of 4 times.

Question 14

What was the first prod?

Answer 14

‘Please continue’

Question 15

What was the 4th prod?

Answer 15

‘You have no other choice; you must go on’

Question 16

What percentage of PPTs shocked learners up to 300v?

Answer 16

100%

Question 17

What percentage of PPTs refused to shock the learners after 300V?

Answer 17

12.5%

Question 18

What percent of PPTs shocked learners up to 450v?

Answer 18

65%

Question 19

Name some signs of distress PPTs began to display around 300v.

Answer 19

Stuttering, sweating, fainting etc

Question 20

What can we conclude from Milgram’s study?

Answer 20

Germans are no different, Americans are also willing to obey harmful orders from authority.

Question 21

Explain the strength of Milgram’s study having research support from Hofling.
What did Hofling’s research find that Milgram’s also found about authority and obedience?
In Hofling’s study, nurses were instructed by an unknown doctor to do what?
What percentage of nurses were willing to do this?
Why did the nurses do this?
This provides evidence for Milgram’s research from a _________ ______ setting.

Answer 21

Research from Hofling has shown that people are willing to obey higher authority. For example, in Hofling’s study, Nurses were instructed by an unknown doctor to give an unknown drug at twice the dosage and he found that 95% of nurses were willing to do this. Nurses said they obeyed due to the higher status of the doctors. Overall, this shows research support for Milgram as it demonstrates high obedience rates to an authority figure in a real life setting.

Question 22

Explain the limitation of Milgram’s study possibly not testing what it intended to test.
What percentage of PPTs did Milgram argue thought the experiment was real?
Perry found by listening to PPT tapes that only what percentage believed that shocks were real? What percentage of PPTs were disobedient?
Sheridan and King conducted a similar study using a puppy and found that what percentage of women and men were willing to administer a fatal shock to a puppy? How does this support Milgram?

Answer 22

Milgram reported that 75% of participants believed the shocks were real. However, Orne and Holland argued that PPTs were acting as they didn’t believe the experiment was real. This is confirmed by Gina Perry who listened to Milgram’s tapes and found that only ½ of PPTs thought the shocks were real and 2/3 of these PPTs were disobedient. This suggests that PPTs displayed demand characteristics, so the experiment isn’t full valid. However, Sheridan and King conducted a similar study and found that 100% of women and 54% of men were willing to administer what they thought was a fatal shock to a puppy, suggesting that the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine as people were obedient when the shocks were real.

Question 23

Explain the limitation of ethical issues within Milgram’s study.
How were PPTs deceived?
What did Milgram argue about deception and how it can help an experiment?
Why might PPTs have experienced psychological harm? What physical signs did some PPTs start to display?
How did Milgram deal with ethical issues?
What percentage of PPTs said they didn’t mind taking part in the study?

Answer 23

Firstly, PPTs were not told the true aims of the study (deception), they believed it was to see how punishment affects learning, but Milgram argued that without deception the experiment would be pointless. Secondly, learners believed that teachers were genuinely being harmed, which resulted in distress from PPTs, with some having seizures. However, Milgram dealt with some of these issues with extensive debriefing sessions and in a questionnaire 84% said they didn’t mind taking part in the study.

Question 24

Explain the limitation of Milgram’s sample.
Consider gender, culture and sample size.

Answer 24

The study was androcentric and tested only 40 American PPTs. This means the research lacks cultural and population validity, as obedience rates in men may be different for women and people of different cultures, therefore cannot be fully generalised.