PAPER 1 - Social Influence - Milgram and obedience Flashcards
(11 cards)
Describe Milgram’s 1963 procedure.
40 American male participants volunteered for a memory study.
Each arrived and drew lots for their role…however, a confederate was always the ‘Learner’ while the true participant was the ‘Teacher’.
An ‘Experimenter’ wore a lab coat.
Teacher delivered shocks to Learner if they made a mistake remembering their word pairs.
Experimenter used prods if the teacher was hesitant.
The shocks were fake but machine labelled them to seem increasing in severity.
Outline Milgram’s key data findings from his baseline obedience study.
Quantitative data:
12.5% stopped at 300 volts.
65% continued to 450 volts - the highest level!
Qualitative data:
Observations - participants showed signs of extreme tension. 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
Explain what Milgram concluded from his baseline obedience study 1963.
We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else.
Certain situational factors encourage obedience (which Milgram later investigated by manipulating variables in the baseline procedure).
Evaluate the strength of replication and research support in Milgram’s 1963 baseline obedience study.
In a French TV game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors)….Beauvois et al. 2012.
80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Thei behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants e.g. signs of anxiety.
This supports Milgram’s findings about obedience to authority.
Evaluate how Milgram’s baseline obedience study has low internal validity.
Orne and holland 1968 argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So they were play-acting.
This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real.
This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.
COUNTERPOINT: However, Sheridan and Kings 1972 participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
This suggests the obedience in Milgram’s study. might be genuine.
Evaluate how Milgram’s findings are limited as they are not due to blind obedience.
Haslam et al. 2014 found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the fourth prod disobeyed.
According to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth prod required blind obedience.
This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
Evaluate the ethical issues in Milgram’s baseline obedience 1963 study.
The participants in this study were deceived e.g. they thought the shocks were real. milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.
Baumrind 1964 felt this deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers e.g. no informed consent possible.
Therefore research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public.
What are the three situational variables identified and investigated by Milgram on obedience?
Proximity
Location
Uniform
Explain the situational variable proximity.
Proximity is relating to the closeness of the Teacher and Learner.
In the baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him.
In the proximity variation, the Teacher and Learner are put in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences f their actions.
Explain the situational variable location.
Location is relating to the prestige of the setting.
In the baseline study, the location was the prestigious Yale University
In the location variation, the study was conducted in a run-down building.
Obedience dropped to 47.5%.
Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority…obedience was expected.
Explain the situational variable uniform.
Wearing a uniform communicated authority.
In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat.
In one variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient phone call’ at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes.
Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations.
A uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.
