situational variables affecting obedience - MILGRAM

proximity - what happened when the learner was in the same room?

levels of obedience dropped to 40%

touch proximity - what happened when the teacher forced the learners hand to the shock plate

levels dropped to 30%

proximity - in the experimenter absent condition what happened when the authority figure left the room?

levels of obedience dropped to 21%

location - what did the ppts say about the fact the experiment was conducted at Yale University?

it gave them confidence in the integrity of the study making them more likely to conform

location - what happened when the study was moved to run-down offices

obedience levels dropped to 48%

uniform - how do they influence obedience?

because they are easily recognisable and convey power and authority

uniform - Bushman (1988)

found that people were more likely to obey a researcher in a police style uniform than dressed as a business executive

Milgram - procedure

the study involved a series of different conditions, each varying some aspect of the situation - the participant always acted as the ‘teacher’ while a confederate acted as 'learner’

what did the ppt do in Milgrams study?

the teacher tested the learner’s ability to remember word pairs, administering (bogus) shocks for any errors increasing in 15-volt increments

what happened in the ‘voice-feedback' condition?

the learner was in another room and stopped responding at 315 volts - the experimenter used ‘prods’ to try and keep the teacher delivering the shocls

what happened in the ‘touch proximity’ condition?

the ppt had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate

what happened on the experimenter absent condition?

the authority figure left the room with the ppt in

what did Milgram ask various groups to predict?

how far the ppts would go before refusing to continue

what did people predict about the ppts?

that very few would go beyond 150 volts

were the predictions correct?

all ppts went to at least 300 volts with only 12.5% stopping there

how many delivered the maximum shock of 450 volts?

65% of ppts

ao3 - androcentric

Milgram's experiment is that it used a biased sample. \n all participants were male (gender bias) who volunteered to take part by responding to an advertisment (volunteering sampling). \n this means the study is limited to men who are likely to volunteer for research- this means that the study lacks population validity and the findings, therefore, cannot be generalised to females or individuals who do not read newspaper advertisment.

\
Orne and Holland (1968) stated that it was lacking internal validity. \n they claim that the participants simply did not believe the shocks were real as despite the fact that the learner cried out in pain, the researcher remained cool and distant. \n they suggest that participants guessed the purpose if the experiment, therefore demonstrating demand characteristics, this is why so many of the participants were prepared to administer all of the shocks.

it could therefore be argued that Milgram's study lacks internal validity as it may not have measured the participant's normal behaviour but rather how they thought the experiment wanted them to behave.

ao3 - ethics

deception - told them the experiment was on ‘punishment and learning’, when in fact he was measuring obedience, and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks.

right to withdraw - it was very difficult for participants with withdraw from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the participants to continue.

protection from harm - many of the participants reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not protect from psychological harm.

debrief - he did debrief his participants following the experiment and 83.7% of participants said that they were happy to have taken part in the experiment and contribute to scientific research.

ao3 - Holfling et al

levels of obedience in nurses on a ward to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21/22 obeyed)