Key theme
Responses to people in authority
Background summary
People believed nazis acted due to dispositional factors milligram wanted to prove that it was situational and disprove the hypothesis
The aim of milgram’s study?
To investigate how obedient people would be to orders from a person in authority that would result in pain and/or harm to others
What was the method in Milgram’s study?
Controlled observation
No IV
DV was the shock voltage administered
15v-450v in 15v increments
Strengths and weaknesses of the study
+: Lab experiment so highly controlled this prevented EVs affecting behaviour
-: Sample isn’t representative as it was self-selected as ps may be more obedient
Sample
- Self-selected via newspaper advert
- Asking for ps to take part in a study on memory
- Paid $4.50
Procedure
- Self-selected via advert
- Allocation of roles at Yale
- Watch learner get strapped down and P has sample shock of 45v
- Learner given shock for wrong answer to if they didn’t answer in 5 seconds
- After 330v the learner stopped making noise
- Any attempt of the p stopping, experimenter said ‘Please continue’ or ‘the experiment requires you to continue’
What were the results?
100% of Ps went to 300%
65% went to 450v
Ps showed signs of tension and stress during the course of the experiment.
What were the conclusions?
- The majority of people are willing to obey destructive orders therefore demonstrating the strength of obedient tendencies
- Ps were clearly stressed due to the competing demands and ingrained dispositions
Additional features of the study?
- The right to withdraw was not obvious
- Teacher felt he had an obligation to the experimenter
Justifications and guidelines adhered to
- Every P was interviewed
- ## Informed their behaviour was normal
Usefulness
Ecological validity: Moderate
Internal validity: Good
Population validity: moderate
Practical application: moderate
Overall, it’s a useful study
Practical Applications
- Encourages people to question legitimacy of authority before obeying
- Obedience is no longer a legal defence
The first debate linked to Milgram’s study
Individual/situational: Situational factors such as location, authority figures and verbal prods and possibly some individuals factors affected obedience rates as not 100% went to 450v
How does the core study link to the area
Assumption - Behaviour is affected by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others.
Link - Authority figure in a lab coat was the other person
Evidence - This influenced all the Ps to reach 300v
Assumption - Behaviour is affected by situational factors and social context
Link - Certain situational factors were important
Evidence - Contributed to 65% obedience to 450v
The second debate linked to Milgram’s study
Freewill/Determinism: Majority of Ps were obedient so it appears that their behaviour was determined by the authority figure’s request
How does Milgram link to the key theme?
- Investigated obedience by ordering men to deliver electric shocks to another
- Majority of Ps delivered maximum of shocks of 450v when ordered by a person in authority even when they struggling with the act
Is the study ethnocentric?
Single western country but replicator studies suggest other cultures produced similar results
Population validity?
- Moderate size
- Androcentric sample (can’t be generalised to women)
- Same country and area
- Volunteer samples are biased
Reliability?
High controls mean that it’ll be a similar experience for all there for it is replicable. Replicator studies have shown a similar tend
Controls used?
Same verbal prods, procedure, learner and experimenter, shock generated and word pairs. Experiment always rigged so Ps were teachers.
Data recorded
Quant and Qual data recorded. Easy comparison due to quant and qual allows us to understand how the ps reacted to the demands e.g. sweating etc
Ecological Validity
Moderate as experimental realism was high, 70% believed the shocks. Mundane realism low, artificial setting.
Internal Validity
- Accusations of DCs but most believed shocks
- P variables
- No order effects
- Situational variables due to high controls
- measure of obedience was objective so no researcher effects
