Milgram 10 (run-down office)

• Aim:

  - to question the relationship of obedience to a persons sense of the context in which he is operating. To explore the problem, the apparatus was moved to a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut and replicated experimental conditions without any visible tie to the university (yale)
• Procedure:

  - ppts were invited through a mail circular similar to the one used at Yale.

  - ppts were paid $4.50

  - ppts were the same age and same occupations as in the original
• Results:

  - 19/40 (47.5%) of ppts delivered to the maximum shock vs 65% in the original study. This is reduced but not significantly lower, there's still a large percentage delivering maximum shock

  - there was no noticeable reduction in tension
• Conclusions:

  - its shown potentially harmful instructions will be followed in some sort of institutional structure BUT it's clear from this study it doesn't have to be reputable.
• Evaluation: strengths

  - using an office block increased ecological validity as it took place in the 'real world' therefore its a more naturalistic setting

  - this study was identical to the one at Yale, this means cause and effect conclusions can be drawn to show that obedience in the office setting was not much lower than obedience in prestigious setting

  - Milgram collected qualitative and quantitative data, in the forms of audio recordings
• Evaluation: weaknesses

  - validity might still be questioned as obedience didn't fall that much. The study was still clearly in a lab

  - by taking ppts into 'real world' this should measure 'real' obedience, but the controls in the study (generator, verbal prods) are all likely to show ppts the task is far from real, which questions task validity

  - 19 ppts obeyed in the office and 26 at Yale, which Milgram claimed as not that different. However, there's still less obedience, some people think its enough to claim using Yale meant the findings lacked validity
• Aim:

  - to question the relationship of obedience to a persons sense of the context in which he is operating. To explore the problem, the apparatus was moved to a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut and replicated experimental conditions without any visible tie to the university (yale)
• Procedure:


  - ppts were invited through a mail circular similar to the one used at Yale.

  - ppts were paid $4.50

  - ppts were the same age and same occupations as in the original
• Results:


  - 19/40 (47.5%) of ppts delivered to the maximum shock vs 65% in the original study. This is reduced but not significantly lower, there's still a large percentage delivering maximum shock

  - there was no noticeable reduction in tension
• Conclusions:

  - its shown potentially harmful instructions will be followed in some sort of institutional structure BUT it's clear from this study it doesn't have to be reputable.
• Evaluation: strengths

  - using an office block increased ecological validity as it took place in the 'real world' therefore its a more naturalistic setting

  - this study was identical to the one at Yale, this means cause and effect conclusions can be drawn to show that obedience in the office setting was not much lower than obedience in prestigious setting

  - Milgram collected qualitative and quantitative data, in the forms of audio recordings
• Evaluation: weaknesses

  - validity might still be questioned as obedience didn't fall that much. The study was still clearly in a lab

  - by taking ppts into 'real world' this should measure 'real' obedience, but the controls in the study (generator, verbal prods) are all likely to show ppts the task is far from real, which questions task validity

  - 19 ppts obeyed in the office and 26 at Yale, which Milgram claimed as not that different. However, there's still less obedience, some people think its enough to claim using Yale meant the findings lacked validity
• Why did participants in Milgram's original study at Yale University trust the experimenter's intentions?

  High reputation of Yale
• Milgram believed that the social setting has a direct impact on a person's ability to become fully obedient
• Where was Milgram's study replicated after Yale University?

  Bridgeport
• In the Bridgeport replication, the mail circular was changed to remove the mention of Yale
• The Bridgeport study took place in a sparsely furnished but clean office
• What did participants in the Bridgeport study believe was the purpose of the research?

  Private firm for industry
• Obedience levels in Bridgeport were slightly lower at 48%
• Steps explaining how the Bridgeport study affected obedience

  1️⃣ Lowered expectations due to shabby room

  2️⃣ Reduced intimidation

  3️⃣ Easier to follow own instincts

  4️⃣ Less concern about authority
• The Bridgeport study suggests that a scientific lab environment is enough to ensure obedience
• What is an example of social conditioning that Milgram uses to explain obedience?

  Respect for elders
• Feeling obliged to finish an action is often due to a fear of being rude
• Why might participants in a rundown office feel less obligated to obey?

  Lowered expectations
• Where was this variation of the Milgram experiment conducted?

  Bridgeport
• In this variation, the study was moved to a run-down office
• The participants in this study were informed that it was affiliated with Yale University.

  False
• Who claimed to work for a private research firm in this variation of the Milgram experiment?

  1. Williams
• The Bridgeport study was designed to remove any association with the original Yale University setting.
• What percentage of participants dropped in obedience in Milgram's study?

  45.5%
• Participants in Milgram's study expressed doubts and asked more questions.
• One participant in Milgram's study objected that it was heartless
• What factor did Milgram believe was most important for obedience in his study?

  Status of authority figure