Milgram 7 (telephone)

• Aim:

  - to test if the relationship between participant and experimenter would have important consequences for obedience
• Procedure:


  - ppts were recruited through volunteering sampling and went through the process of a rigged draw to allocate the role of teacher and learner

  - the experimenter gave the ppt instructions of how to do the learning task and how to shock the learner

  - after giving these instructions, he left the lab and gave his orders by telephone

  - if the ppts had any doubts/ questions they were told to phone experimenter

  - he also gave verbal prods over the phone
• Results:

  - only 9/40 ppts went to 450volts (22.5%) compared to 26 in original

  - interestingly, ppts administered lower shocks than were required and never told the experimenter (repeatedly using lowest shock)
• Conclusions:

  - this experiment showed that the physical presence of an authority figure was an importance force contributing to the ppts obedience or defiance
• Evaluation: strengths

  - used the same procedure in all his studies which helps with comparison, this provides validity (internal) as everything was consistent

  - when Milgram varied the physical presence of the experimenter in other variation, he found it did affect obedience (reliable)

  - other research has supported his findings e.g. Sedikides and Jackson, conducted a study at New York Zoo where visitors were asked to not lean on the railings. Obedience declined when the visitors were further from the person making the request (61% when in same room, 7% when in an adjacent room) shows his findings are also shown in a. more natural setting
• Evaluation: weaknesses

  lacks ecological validity- its not a natural setting, Milgram says the ppts seemed to want to help the experimenter find scientific evidence, so they played a role as a 'helper'. This means they're not in the autonomous state because of the experiment, which reduces validity

  - ppts may not have believed they were real shocks, they may have trusted the situation and the researcher to have regards for the victim. If this was the case, validity is in question
• What was the generalisability for variation 7?

  Low as there were 40 males from America. Doesn't represent how proximity effects obedience levels for females or people from other cultures.
• What was the reliability for variation 7?

  High as it followed a standardised procedure (e.g. the voltage was increase in 15V increments). This means it can be replicated to ensure the findings on how proximity effects obedience is reliable.
• Was there an application for variation 7?

  findings have a useful application because managers of a company e.g. could get employees to be more obedient by ensuring they give face to face instructions to the employees.

  The instructions include that they want to obey them and don't simply give the instructions by email or telephone.
• What was the validity for variation 7?

  Lacks as it took place in a lab setting. It's argued ppt guessed that the study wasn't on memory and the shocks they were administering wasn't real and therefore the findings on how proximity effects obedient behaviour didn't reflect on how they would behave in real life. (demand characteristics)
• Was variation 7 ethical?

  Variation was unethical because although the experimenter left after giving the initial instructions the ppt, the research still give prods (such as this is essential you continue) over the telephone. This means it may not have been clear to the ppts they had the right to withdraw and have pressure to continue.
• What was the generalisability for variation 7?

  Low as there were 40 males from America. Doesn't represent how proximity effects obedience levels for females or people from other cultures.
• What was the reliability for variation 7?

  High as it followed a standardised procedure (e.g. the voltage was increase in 15V increments). This means it can be replicated to ensure the findings on how proximity effects obedience is reliable.
• Was there an application for variation 7?

  findings have a useful application because managers of a company e.g. could get employees to be more obedient by ensuring they give face to face instructions to the employees.

  The instructions include that they want to obey them and don't simply give the instructions by email or telephone.
• What was the validity for variation 7?

  Lacks as it took place in a lab setting. It's argued ppt guessed that the study wasn't on memory and the shocks they were administering wasn't real and therefore the findings on how proximity effects obedient behaviour didn't reflect on how they would behave in real life. (demand characteristics)
• Was variation 7 ethical?

  Variation was unethical because although the experimenter left after giving the initial instructions the ppt, the research still give prods (such as this is essential you continue) over the telephone. This means it may not have been clear to the ppts they had the right to withdraw and have pressure to continue.
• In the Milgram Variation 7, how are instructions delivered to the teacher?

  At the start
• In Variation 7, if teachers have doubts, they must phone the Experimenter
• Obedience decreased to 22.5% in Variation 7 of the Milgram experiment.
• Why did some teachers give lower shocks in Variation 7?

  They thought they were unobserved
• Milgram concluded that the physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience
• What factor is most important for obedience in the Milgram experiment, according to Variation 7?

  Physical presence of authority
• Participants in Milgram's experiments changed their behavior to suit the experimenter's expectations.
• Milgram suggested that changes in the relationship between participant and experimenter would have important consequences for obedience
• How was Experiment 7 different from other variations of Milgram's experiments?

  Instructions by telephone
• What was the obedience rate in Experiment 7, measured by compliance to 450 volts?

  22.5%
• What was the primary orientation of participants upon arrival in Milgram's experiments?

  Experimenter
• Participants were more likely to resist the experimenter when they did not have to confront him face to face.
• Milgram made a mistake in his calculations, stating the obedience rate as 20.5% when it was actually 22.5%
• What form of behavior did participants display when the experimenter was absent in Experiment 7?

  Lower shocks without informing
• Participants in Experiment 7 continued with the experiment rather than openly refusing authority.
• Participants in Experiment 7 chose to give false information to avoid an open break with authority
• What happened when the experimenter reappeared in the lab after being absent?

  Obedience increased
• The presence of the experimenter could force further obedience even after participants refused higher shocks when commanded by telephone.
• What was the primary focus of the variations in the Milgram obedience experiments?

  Disobedience
• The physical presence of authority was a significant factor in influencing obedience levels in the Milgram experiments.
• Destructive obedience depends partly on the proximal relations between the authority figure and the participant
• Why did participants feel less obligated to continue to 450v when the authority was communicated over the phone?

  No legitimate authority
• Situational factors can significantly affect the results of obedience studies.
• In schools, pupils obey teachers most of the time, but outside school, they are less likely to obey