Obedience

• Who investigated obedience

  Milgram (1963)
• procedure of milgrams baseline study

  • 40 American male pps - thought the study was of memory
  • a confederate was always the learner
  • another confederate was always the experimenter
  • the true pp was always the teacher
  • the learner had to remember word pairs. each time they got it wrong the teacher had to give a shock - increasing each time (up to 450 volts)
  • if the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal prod to continue
• what were the prods

  1. please continue
  2. the experiment requires you to continue
  3. its essential you continue
  4. you have no other choice, you must go on
• findings of the baseline study

  • 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
  • 65% continued to 450 volts
  • pps showed signs of extreme tension.
  • 3 had uncontrollable seizures
  • after the study, the pps were debrief, 84% were glad they had participated.
• conclusion of the baseline study

  we obey legitimate authority even if that means our behaviour causes harm to someone else. certain situational factors encourage obedience e.g. proximity, location, uniform
• one strength is that replications have supported milgrams research findings

  In a french TV game show, contestants were paid to give fake electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors) - Beauvoirs 2012. 80% gave the max 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of milligrams participants e.g. many signs of anxiety. This supports milgrams findings about obedience to authority
• one limitation is that milgrams study lacked internal validity


  orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants guessed electric shocks were fake, so they were ‘play acting’. this was supported by perrys discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real. this suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.
• one limitation is that milgrams study lacked internal validity: counterpoint 


  however, Sheridan and Kings (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy: 54% males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. this suggests that the obedience in milgrams study might be genuine
• one limitation is that the findings are not due to blind obedience. 


  Haslam (2014) found that every participant given the first 3 prods obeyed the experimenter, but those given the fourth prod disobeyed. according to social identity theory, the first 3 prods required identification with the science of the research but the 4th prod required blind obedience. this shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority