Social

• What was the aim of Milgram's Study on Obedience?

  Milgram wanted to see if Germans were responsible for what they committed in the Holocaust or if they were just responding to authority andif they are really different from normal people.
• What were the findings of Milgram's Study on Obedience?

  Milgram concluded that ordinary people are very obedient to authority, even when acting inhumanely. All participants gave shocks up to 300V, and 65% of participants gave the maximum 450V. Participents were given 4 prods to continue
• How did Hofling's study differ from Milgram's Study on Obedience?

  In Hofling's study, nurses were told by doctors to administer above the maximum dose to patients. This study had higher intrinsic validity because all participants were night shift nurses who were unaware that they were involved in an experiment. Additionally, there was a control group to compare the study's results to.
• WEAKNESS:how did milgrams study lack mundane realism(refer to hoffling)

  Mundane realism refers to the extent to which a study reflects real-world situations. Obedience studies that involve administering electric shocks may lack mundane realism as this is not something likely to happen in real life. However, there are other studies, such as Hoffling et al (1966), that show high levels of obedience in realistic situations.
• what was milgrams procedure for his test for obediance

  Participants were assigned the role of ‘teacher’ and had to administer electric shocks to another participant (‘the learner ’) every time they gave an wrong answer on a learning task. 40 male participants from the yale area volunteered. They were all assigned through a rigged draw to be the ‘teacher’ giving fake electric shocks to the ‘learner’ who was a condederate
• what is internal validity


  Internal validity refers to weather the effect observed in a study are due to the manipulation of the independent variable and not some other factor Internal validity can be improved by controlling extraneous variables, using standardized instructions and investigator effects
• how did milgrams study acheive internal validity

  • Keeping the location the same - Yale
  • Same experimenter
  • Same voltage
  • Same prods
  • Rigged draw
  • Same learner responses (pre recordings )
• STRENGTH :explain how milgrams study had high reliablility (refer to burger)


  Since the study was made to be the same for each participant with the same instructions for carrying out electric shocks, this makes it easy to replicate to check its reliabiliityFor example, Burger (2009) used Milgram's standardised procedure but altered the maximum voltage to 150 V to make the study more ethical (participants who tried to continue past this point were stopped). He showed very similar findings. Therefore the reliability of the study is likely to be high since similar studies with similar procedure have consistency similar findings
• WEAKNESS: explain how milgrams study broke ethical guidelines

  A weakness was that participants felt unacceptable levels of psychology distress while taking part in the study. This included participants shaking, sweating and some more severly affected had seizures This is a weakness because participants may have felt lasting harm from the study and the shame that followed knowing they could have administered a lethal shock someone However Milgram did try to mitigate this somewhat with a debrief, telling the participants it wasn’t real.
• STRENGTH: explain how milgrams study has real life appliaction (refer tyo mai lai massacre)


  The study has real life applications as it can be used to explain and therefore prevent blind obedience in the real world this can be extrapolated to settings such as war, like the mai lai massacre, where soldiers carried out inhumane acts due to the command of their superiors. Therefore knowledge of how people obey, means training can be provided and soldiers can try and reduce obedience where war crimes might be taking place by refusing to follow instructions and report such behaviour
• Milgram conducted a number of variations to his original study, in order to investigate the precise factors which affect obedience. what are the 3 major variations


  1. When participants were given instructions by telephone
  2. When the experiment was conducted in a run-down office block
  3. When an ordinary man gave the orders
• Milgrams Telephone instruction variation: AIM


  To asses how the proximity of authority changes the level of obedience
• Milgrams Telephone instruction variation: PROCEDURE

  The Experimenter gives the participants their instructions at the start in person They then leave the teacher alone in the room with the shock generator and a telephone. If the teachers have any queries or doubts, they must use the telephone to ring the experimenter. If necessary the “prods” are also delivered over the telephone.
• Milgrams Telephone instruction variation: FINDINGS

  The percentage of obedience of participants went down massively to 22.5% from the original 65% Milgram concluded that having an authority figure in the same room as the teacher made them far more obedient
• Milgrams Telephone instruction variation: EVALUATION


  controlled all variables apart from distance Lacks mundane realism as giving orders over the telephone is unrealistic
• Milgrams Run down office block variation: AIM


  The aim was to asses if the change in setting would change the obediance of the participent
• Milgrams Run down office block variation: PROCEDURE

  Milgram moved the study to a run-down office with little furniture in a busy town called Bridgeport. He did the exact same procedure in the office and only change the location so there is nothing to make the participants link things to the University. The experimenter claimed to work for a private research firm.
• Milgrams Run down office block variation: FINDINGS

  Drop in obediance to 45.5% but milgram didnt see this as significant enought to draw conclusions. participents did show more doubts and asked more questions
• Milgrams Run down office block variation: EVALUATION

  Milgram concludes that the setting is not as important for obedience. It also may be because the participents are in a familiar surrounding so there is less mundane realism. The poor validity of the task means participants may have guessed it wasn’t real
• Milgrams Ordinary man variation: AIM

  To see if uniform shows more authority and makes people more obediant
• Milgrams Ordinary man variation: PROCEDURE

  The procedure is explained to the participant by the experimenter in ordinary clothes- no lab coat. The experimenter then leaves the room leaving a second confederate present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of writing down the times. The experimenter at first did not say to increase the shock by 15V after each incorrect answer, however when the experimenter leaves the confederate suggests a new way of doing the study by taking the voltage up by 15V each time there is a mistake.
• Milgrams Ordinary man variation: FINDINGS

  20 participants did this variation and only 20% obeyed to going to 450V. Milgram concluded that the status of the authority figure is important but other features of the situation (the instructions, the shock generator) still create obedience
• Milgrams Ordinary man variation: EVALUATION

  there was still a rigged draw to choose the cofederate to be a learner and a time keeper and who was a teacher. so they didnt suspect it was fake. the lack of authoity is questionable as they were still in yale university so the legitamcy of the the experimenter is not completly removed
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : AIM

  The aim is to find out if the same results as Milgram study would reoccur when the study is replicated with modern participants. Also jerry burgers study was to see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence their obedience . Finally Burger wanted to see if the presence of having a disobedient model makes a difference to obedience levels
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : PROCEDURE


  The procedure was the same as Milgram's variation #five on his study. The experimenter is a man in his 30s and the loner is in his 50s. The script is the same as Milgram's but the test shock that the participant received is only 15 volts rather than Milgram's Experiment which was 45 volts. If the learner gets the question wrong the experimenter asked the teacher to deliver a shock starting at 15 volts and going up in 15 Volt intervals. The learner will indicate he has a slight heart condition but the experimental replies that the shocks aren't harmful . After 75 volts the learner starts making sounds of pain. At 150 volts the loner cries that he wants to stop and complained about chest pains. If the teacher keeps moving to deliver the 165 Volt shock the experimentert will stop the experiment.
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : PROCEDURE - modal refusal


  In the model refusal condition, another confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks with the participant watching. At 90 volts the confederate teacher turns to the participant an says " I dont know about this "". the confederete acts as if he refuses to go on with the experiment and tells the participant to take over delivering the shocks"
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : how did burger test for individual differences. definition of locus of control and empathy

  Burger used questionnaires to find individual differences that may be factors in obedience: interpersonal reactivity index is a 28 question test that aims to measure empathy. empathy is how sensitive you are to other people's feelings desirability of control scale is a 20 question test that aims to measure locus of control. Locus control is how important it is for you to be in control of events in your life
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : PROCEDURE- how did Jerry Burger use ethical controls, list and explain 4


  Burger also used ethical controls which improved on Milgram's original experiment: There was a two step screening process to take out people who might be more prone to stress from the experience of the experiment The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50 The experimeter was a clinical psychologist and was skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress The test shock that was given to the participants was only 15 volts rather than 45 volts which Milgram had originally done.
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : FINDINGS

  70% of participants were ready to go past 150 volts compared to the 82.5% in Milgram's variation #5 Burger also compared men and women but couldn't find the difference in obedience. Woman was slightly less likely to obey in modal model refusal condition but it wasn't statistically significant Empathy didn't make a big difference to obedience. But in the base condition those who stopped at 150 volts or before did have a significantly higher locus of control.
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : CONCLUSION

  Burger concluded that Milgram's study is still true, people are still influenced by situational factors to obey to an authority figure even if it goes against their own moral value. Empathy didn't make a difference to obedience which went against what Milgram thought but what Burger expected Although locus of control did make a slight difference, suggesting people resist the agentic state(doing something as you know you can place the blame on the authority that asked you to do it). However this disappeared in the model refusal condition and burger doesn't have a definite explanation for why .
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : EVALUATION - STRENGTH- Explain how burger had high reliability (refer to milgram)


  Milgram’s original procedure is very reliable as it can be replicated as shown by Burger. Burger is replicating aspects of Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy) and Variation #17 (model refusal). Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible and used the same confederates every time.He also filmed his whole experiment which adds to his reliability as other people can view his participants’ behaivour and judge obedience for themselves
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : EVALUATION - WEAKNESS- Explain how burger lacked generalisabiliy

  Burger screened people out to be more ethicalb however, by doing this it stops the data being able to generalise to the wider world.
• CONTEMPARY STUDY - BURGER (2009) : EVALUATION - WEAKNESS- Explain how burger lacked validity


  No matter what the experiment was stopped at 150V which was ethically correct . However, stopping the study at 150V may be considered invalid. As there is a possibility that participants who were prepared to go to 165V would still have dropped out later. It is a massive assumption to say they would have continued to 450V just because they delivered the 150V shock. The “model refusal” group, in particular, might have had second thoughts as the shocks got stronger causing the assumptions that were made to possibly be invalid .
• CONTEMPORARY STUDY : BURGER - Why was 150V used as the maximum voltage given to participants in Burger’s study?


  This was considered 'a point of no control' as during milgrams study 4/5 participents went all the way to 450v if they went past 150v.
• what is the BPS


  THE BRITISH PHYCOLOGICAL SOCIETY
• what is the BPS code of ethics:

  Respect - including consent.Competence - professional competency and ethics.Responsibility - welfare of the human Integrity- honesty, addressing misconduct
• ETHICAL ISSUES - milgrams study of obediance- state how milgrams study produced RISK/HARM and how could it be improved


  Participents were able to go all the way 450V before the experiment stopped and were given a 45V shock at the start to see the shockHe could have used a lower starting voltage of 15V and instead of letting participents continue to false 450 volts he could stop the experiment at an earlier voltage like burger did.This would improve the experiment as they would have less moral strain.
• ETHICAL ISSUES - milgrams study of obediance- state how milgrams study had DECEPTION and how could it be improved


  Milgram lied to his participents as they did not know it was a set up and they werent administring electric shocks. this couldnt have been improved as if he told them they were being tested on obediance it could have altered the results as they would be consiously making a change to their behaivour .
• ETHICAL ISSUES - milgrams study of obediance- state how milgrams studys' WITHDRAWL caused harm and how could it be improved


  Participents felt like they had no choice but to continue with the prods given which cause extreme stress levelsHe could have used prods that gave the choice for participents to leave e.g instead of saying 'it is essential for you to continue' he could have said 'we would like you to continue but you can leave '.This would improve the experiment as participents wouldn’t be left feeling stressed and some having seizures
• what is agency theory?

  Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.