MILIGRAMS OBEDIENCE STUDY

Question 1

OBEDIENCE

Answer 1

complying with the orders of an authority figure (compliance is obeying an order without agreeing with it).

Question 2

miligrams aim

Answer 2

• to test the hypothesis that obeying orders to kill another human was specific to extreme obedience and that it wouldn’t happen again

Question 3

what type of particapants did he use? e.g gender, job

Answer 3

• 40 males, aged 20-50,

Question 4

MILIGRAMS PROCEDURE

Answer 4

• teacher would ask learner questions in separate room (confederate) ,
• given shocks if answer was wrong volts increased everytime answer was wrong standardised procudre
• “e.g please continue” if answered wrong gave shocks going up in 15v from 15 – 450 volts

Question 5

MILIGRAMS FINDINGS

Answer 5

100% went to 300 12.5% stopped at 300v, 65% went to 450

Question 6

Low internal validity

Answer 6

• Milgram stated that 75% of participants believed the shocks were genuine.
• Orne and Holland said the participants obeyed as an acting role, and Perry found that 2/3 of participants were disobedient and only 50% of them believed the shocks were real.
• Suggests that participant were responding to demand characteristics.

Question 7

RESEARCH TO SUPPORT MILIGRAM

Answer 7

• french documentary, french pp in reality tv show paid to give
• (fake) electric shocks when ordered by presenter to other pp (confederates) 80% gave max 450 to confederate who was unconsious (acting) anxiety similar to miligrams study
• this supports miligrams findings about obedience ad authority.

Question 8

ETHICAL ISSUES (DECEPTION)

Answer 8

• the pp in the study were decieved e.g they thought the shocks given were real miligram dealt with this by deprefing pp.
• baumrind felt this deception couldve have serious concequences for pp and researchers. e.g no infromed consent
• therefore research can damage the reputation of psychologists and their researcher in the eyes of public

Question 9

Alternative interpretations -Haslam

Answer 9

• Haslam found that the participants always disobeyed the final verbal prod “you have no other choice, you must go on”.
• The participants obeyed when the scientific aims of the study were made clear (“The experiment requires you continue”), but did not follow orders blindly.
• The social identity theory is perhaps a more valid explanation.

Question 10

Countering low internal validity

Answer 10

• Sheridan and King’s participants gave real shocks to a puppy.
• 100% of female participants gave a “fatal” shock.
• Suggests that Milgram’s data was correct as participants behaved the same way when they were using real shocks.