obedience to authority - Milgram (1963)

Question 1

what is obedience?

Answer 1

form of social influence in which an individual FOLLOWS A DIRECT ORDER
- person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority - has the power to punish (when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming)

Question 2

what was the aim of Milgram’s research?

Answer 2

investigate levels of obedience
- to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis
- prove that the holocaust was due to the soldier’s disposition (more obedient)
(situational explanation - argues behaviour resulted from the situation)

Question 3

where did the experiment take place?

Answer 3

Yale University

Question 4

how did Milgram recruit the pps?

Answer 4

advertising
- volunteer sampling

Question 5

how many pps were there? (M)

Answer 5

40 male pps
- paid $4 per hour
- told the study was about memory and learning

Question 6

what role was given to the pps

Answer 6

the participant was ALWAYS THE TEACHER
- confederate = learner every time

Question 7

what happened to the learner at the start of the procedure?

Answer 7

learner - Mr Wallace - was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arm
- teacher saw this all. happening
- learner said he had a ‘minor heart condition’

Question 8

what happened to the teacher at the start of the experiment?

Answer 8

taken into a room with an ELECTRIC SHOCK GENERATOR (fake)
- marked from 15 V : slight shock to 375 V : danger severe shock to 450 V : XXX

Question 9

what was the procedure?

Answer 9

the participant had to read out pairs of words that the learner had to remember
- if they got one wrong or said nothing, the pps had to give an electric shock
- inc. voltage each time
- at 180 V, the learner shouted he could not stand the pain, at 300V, he begged to be released and after 315 V there was silence

Question 10

what was the sequence of standardised prods from the experimenter

Answer 10

please continue / please go on
the experiment requires that you continue
it’s absolutely essential that you continue
you have no other choice, you must go on
- prods had to be in order

Question 11

what did Milgram predict would happen?

Answer 11

only 2% of people would shock to the highest level

Question 12

what were the actual results?

Answer 12

ALL PPS shocked up to 300 V

65% of pps shocked all the way to 450 V
(total of 14 pps defied the experimenter and 26 obeyed)

Question 13

during the study was signs did the pps show?

Answer 13

signs of nervousness and tension
- sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips etc
common sign = nervous laughter (14/40)
3 pps had uncontrollable seizures
- one was so violently convulsive, the experiment had to be halted

Question 14

all participants were … at the end of the study

Answer 14

debriefed
- assured their behaviour was normal

Question 15

all participants were sent a …

Answer 15

follow up questionnaire
- 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated

Question 16

what was the conclusion?

Answer 16

ordinary people will OBEY AUTHORITY even if their actions may be detrimental
- hypothesis that the ‘Germans are different” was not supported

Question 17

strength of Milgram’s research (setting)

Answer 17

GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY
- milgram argued the lab setting actually reflected real life authority
- shows relationship between authority figure and participant

Question 18

research support for M’s study - nurse

Answer 18

Hofling et al.’s (1966)
- 22 nurses received phone calls from ‘Dr Smith’ - confederate
- instructed them to give patient 20mg of a fake drug called astrofen
- label on the drug clearly stated the max dosage = 10mg
- 21/22 nurses complied without hesitation

Question 19

Strength of Milgram’s study - french

Answer 19

SUPPORTING REPLICATION - le jeu de la mort (2010)
- documentary about reality TV - replication of M’s study
- paid to give fake electric shocks to another pps (actually an actor)
- 80% delivered max shock of 460 V
- supports M’s original conclusions

Question 20

weakness of M’s study (holland)

Answer 20

LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY
- were pps showing demand characteristics?
- Orne and Holland (1968) argued pps didn’t actually believe they were giving real shocks
- Perry’s (2013) research - tapes of pps - man of them expressed doubts as to whether shocks were real
- BUT milgram said 70% of pps believed the shocks were real

Question 21

weakness of M’s study

Answer 21

ETHICAL ISSUES
- Baumrind (1964) was extremely critical of how M deceived pps
- made pps believe the roles of teacher and learner were random and made them believe the shocks were real
- Baumrind believe the deception was seen as a betrayal of trust - could damage the reputation of psychologists and their research

Question 22

what did Milgram’s post-study questionnaires find? (how pps felt about taking part)

Answer 22

84% = GLAD they took part
1.3% = SORRY they took part
- majority were NOT psychologically disturbed after the experiment

Question 23

situational variables of obedience

Answer 23

proximity, location, uniform
- investigated by milgram

Question 24

what does proximity mean?

Answer 24

how physically close the TEACHER and LEARNER
- also the TEACHER and EXPERIMENTER
- how close the AUTHORITY figure is to the participant

Question 25

where were the teacher and learner in the proximity variation, how did this effect obedience?

Answer 25

the SAME ROOM
- obedience dropped from 65% TO 40%

Question 26

touch proximity variation

Answer 26

teacher had to force learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate
- (when he refused to answer a question)
- obedience rates dropped to 30%

Question 27

remote instruction condition

Answer 27

experimenter left the room
- gave instructions to teacher by telephone
- obedience reduced to 20.5%

Question 28

location variation

Answer 28

changed it to a RUN-DOWN BUILDING (instead of prestigious uni)
- obedience levels fell to 47.5%

Question 29

uniform - milgram

Answer 29

(in original study, experimenter wore a lab coat = symbol of authority)
- in variation, role of experimenter was taken over by ‘ordinary member of the public (experimenter called away by a phone call)
- EVERYDAY CLOTHES
- obedience dropped to 20%

Question 30

strength of M’s variations

Answer 30

RESEARCH SUPPORT
- other studies have demonstrated influence of these situational variables on obedience
- Bickman (1974)

Question 31

Bickman (1974)

Answer 31

power of UNIFORM
- 3 males researchers, gave orders to 153 random pedestrians
- one in a suit, milkman’s uniform, guard’s uniform
- gave various instructions, like ‘pick that bad up for me’
- 80% of pps OBEYED researcher dressed as a GUARD
- milkman or civilian = 40%

Question 32

strength of M’s variations (spain)

Answer 32

CROSS CULTURAL REPLICATIONS
- Miranda (1981) found high obedient rats in spanish students (80%)
- suggests M’s conclusion is NOT LIMITED to american males
— also females and other cultures

Question 33

strength of M’s variations

Answer 33

CONTROL OF VARIABLES
- highly controlled - only changed one variable
- kept the rest constant
- replicated his variations on 1000 pps - research is VALID, and REPLICABLE
- stronger conclusions can be drawn about situational variables and obedience

Question 34

weakness of M’s variations (conditions)

Answer 34

LACK OF INTERNAL VALIDITY
- Orne and Holland criticised his original study - pps worked out it was fake
- in the uniform variation, even M recognised the situation was so contrived (fake) that some pps may have worked out the truth
- demand characteristics
— don’t know if obedience to authority actually occurred

Question 35

weakness of M’s variations

Answer 35

OBEDIENCE ALIBI
- M’s findings support situational variables
BUT …
- Mandel (1998) argues using these variables almost makes them an excuse / alibi for evil or bad behaviour
- he sees the variables as feeble excused to the holocaust survivors
— saying the reason Nazis committed these atrocities was due to situational factors beyond their control
— upsetting