Milgram variations

• Telephonic variation

  Aim

  • To test the effects of physical distance between the experimenter and teacher
  • Reduces the risk of the participant feeling bound to the experimenter (obliged to help

  out with the scientific study)
• Telephonic variationProcedure

  • Provided face to face instructions first of all and then left the room
  • Continued to provide instructions over the phone
• Telephonic variation

  Results: 

  22.5% continued to 450v in comparison to 65% in the original study
• Telephonic variation

  Strengths

  • Validated by Sedikides and Jackson (1990) 
• Telephonic variation

  Weakness

  • This is not a natural 'obedience' situation, Milgram (1974) says the ppts seemed to have a relationship with the Experimenter in wanting to help them find scientific evidence, so they were in the role of helper.This lowers internal validity.
  • Also, ppts may not have believed the shocks were real, as they may have trusted that the Yale researchers would have regard for the victims' / Learners' wellbeing.
• Rundown office block

  • Same procedures as the original study
  • Participants told the research was being conducted by Research Associated of Bridgeport (private company)
  • Dissociated from Yale (integrity, prestigious settings)
  • Building partly furnished
• Rundown office block

  Results

  47.5 (48%) in comparison to 65%
• Rundown office block

  Strengths

  • Qualitative data was collected recording the conversations of ppts and experimenter.
  • Using an office block added to the validity of the study compared to Yale, in that it took place in the real world.
  • Two ppts were quoted as questioning the validity of the study and competence of the researchers, which shows high internal validity (they thought it was a real situation).
  • The use of controls (keeping everything the same except the location)meant that cause-and-effect conclusions could be drawn to show obedience in the office is not much lower than at Yale.
• Rundown office block

  Weakness 

  • Still a 'lab' setting which lowers validity despite being in an office. Can still argue that, as obedience didn't fall by much, the validity is low.
  • Task still lacks mundane realism, lowering validity.
  • 19 ppt obeyed in the office setting and 26 in the Yale setting, which Milgram claimed was not that different. However, 47.5% compared to 65% so we can argue that using Yale meant the study lacked validity
• Ordinary man 

  Procedure

  • No lab coat – experimenter played by an ‘ordinary man’
  • Draw for three roles: experimenter, teacher and learner (Experimenter – noting times from clock and seated at a desk
  • Followed instruction; strap the learner into the electric chair
  • Didn’t tell the teacher what levels of shocks to administer
  • Received a phone call to leave the room telling the teacher to continue – to ensure the learner had learned the word pairs perfectly
  • Learner – ‘a good way to conduct the study would be to increase the shock level after each incorrect answer’ –repeated throughout the study
• Ordinary man 

  results

  • 20% obedience level compared to the original 65%
  • 80% broke off before the maximum shock 450v
• ordinary man strengths

  • Validity of conclusions good controls were used to keep everything the same except person giving orders.
  • Good reliability in the procedures as they were replicated easily.
  • Bickman (1974) look to see if uniform would have affect obedience in a field study NYC .found people were twice as likely to listen to ”security guard” than someone I “normal clothes”.
  • increases the effectiveness of argument that situational factors (uniform) plays a role in obedience, as well as increasing the external validity due to participants acting as they would in natural environment
• Ordinary man weakness

  • Lack of internal validity
  • This suggests that obedience when the person giving orders has no legitimate authority will be even lower.
  • Lacks mundane realism
  • This addresses a criticism of the baseline study in which Ppts probably trusted Yale research would not harm the 'learners’ so may lack internal validity and may have been measuring how much they trusted Yale not their obedience.
• Telephonic study- Milgram sampled 40 men aged 20-50 from the New Haven area. The men came from different backgrounds/ jobs. The men were selected as they responded to a newspaper article offering $4.50 per hour for an observation. Completed at Yale university

   
• Telephonic study- Provided face to face instructions(same as original) first of all and then left the room

  Continued to provide instructions over the phone

   
• Milgram’s study had a standardised procedure as roles of participant as teacher and confederate as learner were always the same.  A set script was used by experimenter to explain aim and procedure. In addition, responses from the learner were pre-recorded and experimenter used the same prods with each ppt.  Also, the experimenter would leave the room at the same point for all ppts to continue over the telephone.There is opportunity for replication is evident, which will allow the results to be checked for consistency and give the finding on proximity effecting obedience greater reliability.
• Milgram’s telephonic study has useful application because results can help to explain why people blindly obey in situations where there is a legitimate authority figure. eg, Tarnow (2000) used Ms findings to improve pilot training to encourage first officers to challenge authority of the pilot when they are in error.  Tarnow believes this could prevent up to 20% of plane crashes. shows Milgram’s study has helped influence training methods, within differing industries, to ensure people are educated to challenge legitimate authority when safety of others
• Milgrams telephonic study: However, not all participants did not continue to deliver the highest shock during the task. 

  Evidence to support from the AO1

  During this variation, 22.5% continued to 450v in comparison to 65% in the original study because of the change in situation regarding the proximity.

  Why is this a weakness (GRV)

   This suggest that there must be other situational elements that play a role on obedience, rather than just proximity. This means it cannot fully accurately determine this behaviour, which reduces its validity.

   
• Rundown office block

  Procedure

  Same procedures as the original studyDifferences:

  Participants told the research was being conducted by Research Associated of

   Bridgeport  (private company)

  Dissociated from Yale (integrity, prestigious settings)

  Building partly furnished
• Milgram set up a variation where an 'ordinary man gives orders' Power relations:role of authority on obedience

  No lab coat:experimenter played by an ‘ordinary man’

  Draw for roles: experimenter, teacher and learner Experimenter: notes times from clock, at desk, Followed instruction ‘strap learner into electric shock chair‘ Didn’t tell teacher what levels of shocks to administer, Received a  phone call to leave room telling teacher to continue: ensure the learner had learned word pairs perfectly Learner: ‘good way to conduct study would be to increase shock level after incorrect answer’