what is obedience
- a change in behaviour to follow a direct order from an authority figure who has the power to punish when obedience is not shown
- form of SI
what was Milgram (1963) aim?
- wanted to assess obedience levels
- see whether people would obey figure of authority when told to harm another person
what was Milgram’s (1963) procedure?
40 male volunteers - paid $4.50
- each ptp introduced to conf upon arrival - drew lots on who would be ‘teacher’ (T) and ‘learner’ (L - called mr wallace) - lot fixed so ptp always teacher
- an ‘experimenter’ also involved who was a conf
- learner - strapped to chair + wired up with electrodes - had to remember pair of words each time made error ptp had to give electric shock via switches on ‘shock machine’
- from slight to intense to danger-severe - when teacher 300 volts L pounded on wall + no response to next q
- 315 again pounded but silent rest procedure
what happened when ptp refused to administer shocks
when ptp refused to administer shock - experimenter gave series of - prods
- prod 1 - ‘pls continue’/’please go on’
- prod 2 - ‘the exp requires that you will continue’
- prod 3 - ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
- prod 4 - ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
what were the baseline findings of Milgram (1963)?
- all ptps went up to 300v and 12.5% stopped here
- 65% went up to 450v - fully obedient
- he collected qdata including observations: ptps showed signs of extreme tension - sweating, stuttering , biting lips + three had seizures
what did milgram do after the study?
all ptps in baselin - debriefed
assured beh = normal
sent follow-up questionnaire - 84% glad to have ptp
what does germany have to do with Milgram (1963)?
- he wanted to know why such high prop of germany obeyed hitler’s inhumane requests
- thought possible explanation - germans diff from people from other countries - perhaps more obedient
- to determine this needed a procedure to assess how obedient people are
what were the conclusions of Milgram (1963)?
- concluded german people are not ‘different’
- american ptps willing to obey even when might harm another
evaluate milgram 1963
how is replication a strength of milgram
- due to the controlled laboratory nature of exp - every ptp completed exact same procedure
so can be replicated - French documentary in 2012 paid participants to administer fake electric shocks to actors
and 80% delivered 460v to ‘unconscious’ man - behaviour similar to that of Milgram’s (nervous laughter, nail biting etc)
- results were not just due to special circumstances but could be repeated
- participants obeyed authority figure regardless of the consequence on the individual
increasing reliability
how is replication a strength of milgram
- due to the controlled laboratory nature of exp - every ptp completed exact same procedure
so can be replicated - French documentary in 2012 paid participants to administer fake electric shocks to actors
and 80% delivered 460v to ‘unconscious’ man - behaviour similar to that of Milgram’s (nervous laughter, nail biting etc)
- results were not just due to special circumstances but could be repeated
- participants obeyed authority figure regardless of the consequence on the individual
increasing reliability
how is dealing with ethics a strength of milgram?
- ptp cared for after - carried out role as a psych - same mental state
- after the exp stopped- either when the experimenter used all verbal prods/max voltage reached
- all ptps thoroughly de-briefed + de-hoaxed - 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated
- Milgram also kept in touch years after - make sure study left no lasting mental or physical damage
how is low internal validity a weakness of milgram?
- ptps behaved the way they did because guessed the shocks were not real
- so milgram didnt test what he intended to
- Perry listened to tapes of ptps + reported many expressed doubts about shocks
- does not reflect authority in real world eg. police , teachers
everyday obedience is subtle compared to shocks - cannot generalise to everyday
- lacks ecological validity
how is sample a weakness of milgram?
- Androcentric study-data cannot be generalised to females
- sample included all men lacking pop validity
what 3 situational variations did Milgram carry out after the baseline study
proximity
location
uniform
what was Milgrams proximity variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
- teacher could hear learner but not see him in baseline
- in proximity variation - teacher + learner in same room - obedience rate dropped to 40%
- in touch proximity - dropped 30%
- remote instruction - reduced 20.5%
- decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of actions - in baseline when seperated ptp less aware of harm so more obedient
what was Milgrams location variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
- conducted in run-down office block - obedience fell to 47.5%
- prestigious uni environment gave study legitimacy + authority - ptps more obedient in location bc perceived experimenter shared this legitimacy + obedience expected
what was Milgrams uniform variation like? what were the findings? explanation?
- in baseline experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of his authority
- in one variation experi called away at start + replaced by ordinary civilian (conf) in everyday clothes
- obedience dropped to 20%
- uniforms encourage obedience bc widely recognised as symbols of authority
- accept someone in a uniform entitled to expect obedience bc authority legitimate
- someone without - less right to expect obedience
evaluate milgrams situational variations
how is offering excuses a limitation of milgram?
- there is discomfort surrounding his finding’s supporting a situational explanation of obedience
- perspective criticised by Mandel (1998) - argues offers excuse/alibi for evil behaviour - offensive to survivors of holocaust to suggest nazis simply obeying orders
- milgram’s explanation also ignores role of dispositional factors - implying nazis victims of situational factors beyond their control
how is support of the power of uniforms a strength of milgram’s research into situational variables?
- bickman (1974)
- tested ecological validity of Milgram’s work by conducting in more realistic setting - 3 researchers gave direct requests to random pedestrians
- in milkman uniform, guard uniform or suit+tie
- found ptps most likely to obey researcher dressed as guard 80% than milkman or civilian 40%
- supports milgram’s findings for uniforms - obedience influenced by amount of authority person perceived to have
how is cross-cultural replication a strength of milgram’s research into situational variables?
- replicated in other cultures. The findings of cross-cultural research have been generally supportive of Milgram
- Miranda et al - obedience rate 90%+ amongst Spanish students -suggests
that Milgram’s concs about obedience not limited to American males - valid across cultures + apply to females too
how is DC a limitation to milgram’s research into situational variables?
- ptps may have been aware procedure faked
- Orne and Holland - criticised milgram og study + point out even more likely in variations bc of extra manipulation
- ex, when experi replaced by a ‘member of public’ - even milgram himself said situation so contrived ptps may well have worked out truth
- therefore in all studies unclear whether findings due to obedience or ptps saw through deception + responded to demand characteristics
