Obedience - Milgram
26 September 2024 08:29
Milgram's research
Milgram (1963) wanted to answer the question Milgram’s situational variables
- Why did such a high proportion of the German people support Hitler's plan to slaughter over 6 million Jews in Milgram’s second experiment.
the Holocaust
He began his research be establishing a method to study obedience. Proximity
Procedure - In the original study, the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms (heard but not seen)
- M recruited 40 male ppts through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post, that stated he was looking for ppts Proximity variation 1 = the teacher and learner were in the same room, and obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40%
for a study about memory Proximity variation 2 = the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when they refused to
- The ppts recruited were ages between 20 and 50 years answer, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 30%
- They were offered $4.50 to take part Proximity variation 3 = the experiment left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by phone, obedience rates
- A confederate, 'Mr Wallace', always ended up as the 'learner' with the true ppt being the 'teacher' dropped form 65% to 20.5%
- There was also an 'experimenter' dressed in a lab coat, played by an actors
- The ppts were told they could leave the study at any time Location
- The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes - In the original study, Milgram conducted his study in Yale university
- The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a - In his location variation, he conducted his study in a run-down building, obedience rates fell from 65% to 47.5%
mistake on a learning task
- The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher, thereafter the shocks weren't real Uniform
- The shock level started at 15 and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts - In the original study, the experiment wore a grey lab coat to symbolise authority
- When the teacher got to 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to the next question - In his uniform variation, the experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient phone call and replaced by an
- After the 315-volt shock, the learner pounded on the wall again but after there was no further response from ‘ordinary member of the public’ played by a confederate
the learner - Obedience rates dropped form 65% to 20%
- When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a standard instruction - 'An
absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'
- If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experiment used a sequence of 4 standard prods
1. 'please continue' or 'please go on'
2. 'The experiment requires that you continue'
3. ' it is absolutely essential that you continue'
4. 'you have no other choice, you must go on'
Findings
- No ppts stopped below 300 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
- 65% continued to 450 volts
- Qualitative data were also collected, the ppts showed signs of extreme tension
- Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the ppts behaviour
- The students estimated that no more than 3% of the ppts would continue to 450 volts, showing the findings
weren't expected Evaluations
- All ppts were debriefed, and assured their behaviour was normal Research evidence
- Ppts were send follow-up questionnaire - 84% reported they felt glad to have participated Bickman (1974) -
- Had 3 confederates in 3 different outfits = jacket and tie, security guard, milkman
Evaluation - The confederates asked passers-by on the street of NYC to perform tasks, such as picking up litter or giving a coin for
Low internal validity parking
- Orne and Holland (1968) - ppts didn’t believe in the set up and guessed the shocks weren’t real, therefore - Found people were 2x as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ rather than the ‘jacket and tie’
presenting demand characteristics - Shows that uniform conveys authority which supports milgrams 2nd study
- Perry (2013) - listened to original recordings and found ppts had many doubts over shocks
- Sheridan and king (1972) - conducted a study delivering real shocks to puppies. 54% men and 100% women Lack of internal validity
delivered a fatal shock, therefore supporting Milgram’s study - Orne and holland criticised that many of the ppts had figured the study was fake
- Milgram stated that 70% of his ppts believed the shocks were real - Its likely that the ppts in the variations worked out it was fake due to extra manipulation
- This is a limitation as its unclear if the results are genuine due to obedience due to deception
Good external validity
- Milgram claimed lab experiments reflected wider authority relationships Cross-cultural replications
- Hofling et al (1966) - studied nurses on hospital wards and found 21/22 nurses obeyed unreasonable demands - Strength as Milgram’s research has been replicate in other cultures
by doctors Miranda et al (1981) - found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students
- Milgram’s research isn’t just limited to the American males but females across cultures
Supporting replication Smith and Bond (1974) - state that replications have often taken place in the Western world, such as Spain which isn’t
Game of death (2010) - French documentary about reality TV dissimilar to America
- Includes a replication of Milgram’s study Kilham and Mann (1974) - tested gender differences in obedience amongst Australian students
- 80% delivered 460 volt shocks and showed the same uncomfortable behaviour that Milgram’s ppts showed - 63 males and 62 female undergraduates
- 16% of women and 40% of males obeyed
Ethical issues - Links back to both Milgram and Sheridan and King. Shows Milgram’s isn’t high in external validity due to gender bias
- Baumrind (1964) - was very critical of the ways Milgram deceived his ppts
- Milgram led his ppts to believe that the allocation of roles as ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ was random, but it was Further support
fixed - Does obedience to authority justify evil actions?
- The most significant deception was milgram leading his ppts to believe the electric shocks were real - Mandel (1998) - Argues Milgram’s study offers an excuse for evil actions since they were ‘only following actions’
- Baumrind objected as she saw deception as a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of - May be offensive to holocaust survivors, suggesting Nazi soldiers were only following orders and were victims
psychologists and their research themselves of situational factors beyond their control
- Kelman and Hamilton (1989) - argued that the war-crimes committed in My Lia (Vietnam war) are understandable
Alternative explanation: Social identity theory via Milgram’s theory as the soldiers stated they were just following orders
- Social identity theory - the key to obedience lies in group identification
- In Milgram’s study, the ppts identified with the experiment, they identified with the science of the study
- Obedience levels fell as the ppts identified less with the science and more with the victim
Haslam and reicher (2012) analysed the behaviour of the ppts in Milgram’s study, they looked at how a person
behaved every time one of the four prods was used.
- First 3 pods don’t demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science. But the 4th prod demands
obedience, every time it was used the ppts quit
26 September 2024 08:29
Milgram's research
Milgram (1963) wanted to answer the question Milgram’s situational variables
- Why did such a high proportion of the German people support Hitler's plan to slaughter over 6 million Jews in Milgram’s second experiment.
the Holocaust
He began his research be establishing a method to study obedience. Proximity
Procedure - In the original study, the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms (heard but not seen)
- M recruited 40 male ppts through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post, that stated he was looking for ppts Proximity variation 1 = the teacher and learner were in the same room, and obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40%
for a study about memory Proximity variation 2 = the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when they refused to
- The ppts recruited were ages between 20 and 50 years answer, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 30%
- They were offered $4.50 to take part Proximity variation 3 = the experiment left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by phone, obedience rates
- A confederate, 'Mr Wallace', always ended up as the 'learner' with the true ppt being the 'teacher' dropped form 65% to 20.5%
- There was also an 'experimenter' dressed in a lab coat, played by an actors
- The ppts were told they could leave the study at any time Location
- The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes - In the original study, Milgram conducted his study in Yale university
- The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a - In his location variation, he conducted his study in a run-down building, obedience rates fell from 65% to 47.5%
mistake on a learning task
- The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher, thereafter the shocks weren't real Uniform
- The shock level started at 15 and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts - In the original study, the experiment wore a grey lab coat to symbolise authority
- When the teacher got to 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to the next question - In his uniform variation, the experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient phone call and replaced by an
- After the 315-volt shock, the learner pounded on the wall again but after there was no further response from ‘ordinary member of the public’ played by a confederate
the learner - Obedience rates dropped form 65% to 20%
- When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a standard instruction - 'An
absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer'
- If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experiment used a sequence of 4 standard prods
1. 'please continue' or 'please go on'
2. 'The experiment requires that you continue'
3. ' it is absolutely essential that you continue'
4. 'you have no other choice, you must go on'
Findings
- No ppts stopped below 300 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
- 65% continued to 450 volts
- Qualitative data were also collected, the ppts showed signs of extreme tension
- Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the ppts behaviour
- The students estimated that no more than 3% of the ppts would continue to 450 volts, showing the findings
weren't expected Evaluations
- All ppts were debriefed, and assured their behaviour was normal Research evidence
- Ppts were send follow-up questionnaire - 84% reported they felt glad to have participated Bickman (1974) -
- Had 3 confederates in 3 different outfits = jacket and tie, security guard, milkman
Evaluation - The confederates asked passers-by on the street of NYC to perform tasks, such as picking up litter or giving a coin for
Low internal validity parking
- Orne and Holland (1968) - ppts didn’t believe in the set up and guessed the shocks weren’t real, therefore - Found people were 2x as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ rather than the ‘jacket and tie’
presenting demand characteristics - Shows that uniform conveys authority which supports milgrams 2nd study
- Perry (2013) - listened to original recordings and found ppts had many doubts over shocks
- Sheridan and king (1972) - conducted a study delivering real shocks to puppies. 54% men and 100% women Lack of internal validity
delivered a fatal shock, therefore supporting Milgram’s study - Orne and holland criticised that many of the ppts had figured the study was fake
- Milgram stated that 70% of his ppts believed the shocks were real - Its likely that the ppts in the variations worked out it was fake due to extra manipulation
- This is a limitation as its unclear if the results are genuine due to obedience due to deception
Good external validity
- Milgram claimed lab experiments reflected wider authority relationships Cross-cultural replications
- Hofling et al (1966) - studied nurses on hospital wards and found 21/22 nurses obeyed unreasonable demands - Strength as Milgram’s research has been replicate in other cultures
by doctors Miranda et al (1981) - found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students
- Milgram’s research isn’t just limited to the American males but females across cultures
Supporting replication Smith and Bond (1974) - state that replications have often taken place in the Western world, such as Spain which isn’t
Game of death (2010) - French documentary about reality TV dissimilar to America
- Includes a replication of Milgram’s study Kilham and Mann (1974) - tested gender differences in obedience amongst Australian students
- 80% delivered 460 volt shocks and showed the same uncomfortable behaviour that Milgram’s ppts showed - 63 males and 62 female undergraduates
- 16% of women and 40% of males obeyed
Ethical issues - Links back to both Milgram and Sheridan and King. Shows Milgram’s isn’t high in external validity due to gender bias
- Baumrind (1964) - was very critical of the ways Milgram deceived his ppts
- Milgram led his ppts to believe that the allocation of roles as ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ was random, but it was Further support
fixed - Does obedience to authority justify evil actions?
- The most significant deception was milgram leading his ppts to believe the electric shocks were real - Mandel (1998) - Argues Milgram’s study offers an excuse for evil actions since they were ‘only following actions’
- Baumrind objected as she saw deception as a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of - May be offensive to holocaust survivors, suggesting Nazi soldiers were only following orders and were victims
psychologists and their research themselves of situational factors beyond their control
- Kelman and Hamilton (1989) - argued that the war-crimes committed in My Lia (Vietnam war) are understandable
Alternative explanation: Social identity theory via Milgram’s theory as the soldiers stated they were just following orders
- Social identity theory - the key to obedience lies in group identification
- In Milgram’s study, the ppts identified with the experiment, they identified with the science of the study
- Obedience levels fell as the ppts identified less with the science and more with the victim
Haslam and reicher (2012) analysed the behaviour of the ppts in Milgram’s study, they looked at how a person
behaved every time one of the four prods was used.
- First 3 pods don’t demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science. But the 4th prod demands
obedience, every time it was used the ppts quit
