SOCIAL INFLUENCE - milgram's research Flashcards Preview

PSYCHOLOGY - paper 1 social influence > SOCIAL INFLUENCE - milgram's research > Flashcards

Flashcards in SOCIAL INFLUENCE - milgram's research Deck (12):
1

who performed research into obedience?

- milgram

2

what year was MILGRAM’s study?

- 1963

3

how many participants did MILGRAM have?

- 40

4

who were MILGRAM’s participants?

- american
- male
- 20 - 50 years of old

5

- what sampling method did MILGRAM use?

- volunteer sampling with a $4.50 incentive
(was told the study was for memory)
- ‘randomly’ assigned roles of teacher and learner

6

what was the set-up of the experiment?

- ‘teacher’ and experimenter were in the same room
- ‘student’ in a different room

7

what was the procedure of MILGRAM’s experiment?

- ‘teacher’ shocked ‘learner’ when they gave an incorrect answer to a question on a learning task
- shocks started at 15v and then increased to 450v
- at 300v the learner gave no further response

8

what happened if a participant wanted to leave?

- right to withdraw was suppressed
(not denied)
- used 4 prods such as ‘please continue’

9

what were MILGRAM’s findings?

(quantitative)
- no one stopped below 300v
- 12.5% stopped at 300v
- 65% continued to 450v

(qualitative)
- participants showed signs of tension

10

EVALUATION

what did ORNE and HOLLAND say? and how does this relate to MILGRAM?

- the participants didn’t really believe the shocks were real
- PERRY confirmed this by listening to recordings of the study
so...

- reduces the internal validity of the study

11

EVALUATION

what did HOFLING do? and how does this relate to MILGRAM?

- demonstrates the relationship between an authority figure and participant which reflects wider society
- HOFLING studied nurses and found that 21/22 nurses obeyed unjustified doctor demands
so...

- improves the external validity of MILGRAM’s study

12

EVALUATION

what did BAUMRIND say? and how does this relate to MILGRAM?

- critical of the ways in which the participants were deceived
(the roles weren’t randomly allocated and the shocks weren’t real)
- psychological harm to the participants by harming another human (or thinking so)

HOWEVER...

- to combat this, MILGRAM debriefed participants and reassured them that their results were natural
(84% said they were glad to have participated)