Social Influence Case Study
- Obedience, Milgram (1936)
Procedure (AO1)
- 40 American men volunteered, supposedly on memory
- When the participant arrived they were introduced to a confederate, and Milgram drew lots to
see who would be the Teacher and Learner
- But the confederate was fixed to be the teacher
- There was also an Experimenter who was a confederate
- The teacher was then given a small eclectic shock to see how the learner would feel
- The study aimed to assess obedience where an authoritative figure (experimenter) ordered
the participant (teacher) to electrocute a learner if they give the wrong answer
Findings (AO1)
- Every participant delivered shocks up to 300 volts, and 65% delivered the 450 volts
- Milgram collected qualitative data and participants (teachers) showed distress, tension and
sweat
Conclusions (AO1)
- American participants were willing to obey orders even if they might harm another person in
front of authority and ‘German people are not different’
Research Support (Strength) (AO3)
- Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary
- The participants believed they ere part contestants in a pilot episode for a new show
- They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to the other participants (confederates) in front
of an audience
- 80% of participants gave maximum shocks of 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man
- They showed similar behaviours to milgram's participants e.g. sweating
- This support milgram’s findings of obedience
Low Internal Validity (Limitation) (AO3)
- Milgram’s procedure may have not been testing what it intended to test
- Because 75% of participants behaved as they did as they didn't believe in the set up, so they
were play acting
- Gina Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram and reported that half of them believed the
shocks were real
- So participants may have been reacting to Demand Characteristics
Highly Controlled (Strength) (AO3)
- The experiment had highly controlled variables as all participants went through the same
procedure
- This produced objective data and minimised the effect of any other variables
- Which made the experiment replicable to increase validity
Ethical Issues (Limitation) (AO3)
- Participants were deceived as they thought the lots were random
- And they thought the schools were real
- This could cause serious consequences for participants and researchers
- This could be prevented by Milgram debriefing participants
- Obedience, Milgram (1936)
Procedure (AO1)
- 40 American men volunteered, supposedly on memory
- When the participant arrived they were introduced to a confederate, and Milgram drew lots to
see who would be the Teacher and Learner
- But the confederate was fixed to be the teacher
- There was also an Experimenter who was a confederate
- The teacher was then given a small eclectic shock to see how the learner would feel
- The study aimed to assess obedience where an authoritative figure (experimenter) ordered
the participant (teacher) to electrocute a learner if they give the wrong answer
Findings (AO1)
- Every participant delivered shocks up to 300 volts, and 65% delivered the 450 volts
- Milgram collected qualitative data and participants (teachers) showed distress, tension and
sweat
Conclusions (AO1)
- American participants were willing to obey orders even if they might harm another person in
front of authority and ‘German people are not different’
Research Support (Strength) (AO3)
- Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary
- The participants believed they ere part contestants in a pilot episode for a new show
- They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to the other participants (confederates) in front
of an audience
- 80% of participants gave maximum shocks of 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man
- They showed similar behaviours to milgram's participants e.g. sweating
- This support milgram’s findings of obedience
Low Internal Validity (Limitation) (AO3)
- Milgram’s procedure may have not been testing what it intended to test
- Because 75% of participants behaved as they did as they didn't believe in the set up, so they
were play acting
- Gina Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram and reported that half of them believed the
shocks were real
- So participants may have been reacting to Demand Characteristics
Highly Controlled (Strength) (AO3)
- The experiment had highly controlled variables as all participants went through the same
procedure
- This produced objective data and minimised the effect of any other variables
- Which made the experiment replicable to increase validity
Ethical Issues (Limitation) (AO3)
- Participants were deceived as they thought the lots were random
- And they thought the schools were real
- This could cause serious consequences for participants and researchers
- This could be prevented by Milgram debriefing participants
