milgrams exp

• when did it take place

  1963
• what was it investigating

  obedience, he wanted to see if people would obey someone who appeared to be a legitimate authority figure
• what was the sampling technique


  volunteer
• number of participants


  40 males (in the original experiment) from a range of backgrounds
• procedure:


  -were told the experiment was about the effects of punishment on learning

  -introduced to another participant who was a confederate and then drew lots to see who would play the role of the teacher/student

  -lots were rigged so that the naive participant was always the teacher

  -participant was given a 45V shock to convince them they were real

  -the teacher then had to shock the student for every wrong answer, increasing by 15V each time. The switches were labelled from 15V up to 450V XXX

  -at 300V the student cried out and begged for release

  -at 315V the student fell silent

  -if the participant wanted to stop, pre scripted prompts were given bby the researcher to make them carry on eg 'hes fine, go on' / 'the experiment requires you to go on' / 'it is essential to go on
• findings:


  100% of participants went to 300V

  65% of participants went to 450V

  participants/teachers had some reactions eg shaking, sweating, nervous laughter and one had a seizure

  
  

  milgram had some students predict before the experiment that only 3% would give maximum shocks

  
  

  milgram found that 75% of participants said they believed the set-up was real
• conclusions:

  milgram concluded that normal people were cabable of doing evil deeds - this was partly due to the situation they were put in
• internal validity of the experiment (is it measuring obedience?)


  orne and holland:

  -claim the study lacked experimental realism ie,

  participants did not really believe that they were administering shocks,

  they knew that people don't get hurt in psychology experiments,

  why did they need someone to act as the teacher when the experimenters could do it themselves?

  why did the sounds come from a speaker in the corner of the room?

  why was the experimenter so calm?

  
  

  however, milgram replied and said: that the film evidence shows the participants extreme reactions shows that they took the situation seriously

  milgram found that 75% of participants said they believed the set-up was real
• replication experiment to test internal validity of milgrams


  sheridan and king

  
  

  theorised that participants realized the student was faking his cries of pain

  -decided to administer real shocks on a puppy

  
  

  as the voltage increased, the puppy:

  -barked

  -jumped up and down

  -howled with pain

  
  

  the participants were horrified and:

  -paced

  -hyperventilated

  - openly wept

  BUT 20/26 of participant kept going to the maximum voltage

  
  

  all 13 women went to the maximum

  only 7/13 men went to the maximum
• external validity (can it be generalised out of the experiment)


  -milgram argued that the demands of an authority figure eg to do a task are the same in natural and artificial situations and therefore have a high realism

  -has ecological validity as more naturalistic studies have been carried out by hoffing and bickman
• hoffing et al ecologic experiment


  field study

  -nurse alone on a ward

  -'dr smith' calls the nurse on the phone to give 20 mg dose of the fake drug Astroten even though the label says max dose 10 mg

  -by following this order the nurses were breaking rules: they shouldn't take orders over the phone, signature was needed, drug was not on the ward list

  
  

  findings:

  21/22 nurses obeyed

  
  

  conclusions:

  nurses will obey the legitimate authority of a doctor even in a natural setting
• ethical issues of milgrams experiment


  deception: dealt with debreifing

  lack of informed consent: dealt with by prior general consent + presumptive consent (ask people of a similar age and background if they would agree to take part)

  protection from harm: dealt with by, the right to withdraw, debriefing and having a neutral observer

  right to withdraw: (were continuously told to keep going) dealt with right to withdraw