Milgram Shock Experiment: Key Concepts and Findings

These flashcards encompass key concepts, methodology, outcomes, and ethical considerations from Stanley Milgram's Shock Experiment, providing a comprehensive review for exam preparation.

What was the primary aim of Stanley Milgram's Shock Experiment?

To study obedience to authority, examining whether individuals would obey orders to harm another person.

What method did Milgram use in his experiment?

Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a 'learner' for incorrect answers.

What surprising result did Milgram find regarding participants' obedience?

A significant percentage of participants administered the maximum level of shocks, despite apparent discomfort.

What ethical concerns were raised by Milgram’s experiment?

The use of deception and the potential for emotional distress among participants.

In which decade was the Milgram Shock Experiment conducted?

The 1960s.

How many participants were involved in Milgram's original study?

40 male participants aged between 20 and 50 years.

What was the 'teacher' and 'learner' dynamic in the experiment?

The participant (teacher) administers shocks, while the confederate (learner) pretends to receive shocks.

What percentage of participants continued to the highest voltage level of 450 volts?

65%.

What was the main conclusion of Milgram's findings?

Ordinary people are likely to obey authority figures, even to the point of harming others.

How did Milgram ensure that participants believed the shocks were real?

Participants received a mild electric shock of 45 volts to convince them the shocks were genuine.

What factors influenced obedience in the Milgram experiments?

Prestige of the location, uniform of the authority figure, physical distance from the 'learner', and social support.

What effect did the presence of peers have on obedience levels?

When peers refused to continue, obedience rates dropped significantly.

What does Milgram's Agency Theory explain?

It explains that individuals enter an 'agentic state' where they see themselves as agents for another's will, relieving personal responsibility.

How did Milgram’s study relate to the Holocaust?

Milgram questioned if individuals in the Holocaust were simply obeying orders, drawing parallels to his findings on obedience.

What was Milgram's methodology regarding participant selection?

Participants were recruited through newspaper advertisements.

What did the follow-up studies reveal about participant satisfaction post-experiment?

Approximately 84% of participants stated they were glad to have participated.

How did participants react emotionally during the shocks administered?

Many displayed signs of tension, stress, and discomfort, including nervous laughter and tears.

What role did the experimenter's authority play in participants' willingness to continue?

The authoritative presence of the experimenter strongly influenced participants to obey commands.

What significant methodological variation was found in Milgram's prodding?

Participants reported different experiences regarding the prodding technique, leading to questions of consistency.

What happens when participants are assigned to provide physical shock?

Obedience decreases as the personal responsibility for harm is felt more directly.

What does the Social Support Condition of the experiment illustrate?

The presence of dissenting peers significantly reduces obedience rates to authority.

How did Milgram's study address informed consent?

Participants were not fully informed and were deceived about the nature of the study.

What changes in research ethics can be attributed to Milgram's findings?

The establishment of informed consent, debriefing protocols, and independent oversight in psychological research.

What demographic groups did Milgram’s sample primarily consist of?

Primarily male and a range of occupations from diverse backgrounds.

What happened to participants when they expressed discomfort?

The experimenter used standardized prods to compel them to continue.

What was a common psychological response observed during the experiment?

Participants often exhibited signs of acute internal conflict between obedience and moral judgment.

How did Milgram’s experiment highlight the impact of authority?

It demonstrated how people can suspend their moral beliefs in favor of complying with an authority figure.

In which location did Milgram conduct his original experiments?

Yale University.

What did Milgram mean by 'gradual nature of the task'?

The incremental increase in shock levels made it harder for participants to resist.

What does the term 'agentic state' refer to in Milgram's findings?

A state in which individuals see themselves as instruments of another's will.

What was Milgram’s rationale for using deception in his experiment?

To reveal difficult-to-capture truths about human behavior under authority.

What concerns did Baumrind raise about Milgram's experiment?

Criticism of lack of informed consent and potential psychological harm to participants.

How did Milgram's findings relate to historical events such as the Holocaust?

He proposed parallels regarding obedience to authority and moral conflict.

What is motivated reasoning and how did it relate to Milgram's findings?

Individuals justified their obedience as helping science or fulfilling a job.

What did Milgram’s experiments reveal about the effect of perceived responsibility?

When responsibility is shifted to the authority figure, individuals are more likely to comply.

How did the experiment demonstrate the concept of 'buffering'?

The physical separation between the participant and the learner reduced the emotional impact of their actions.

Why was Milgram's experiment controversial?

Due to ethical concerns about deception and the stress caused to participants.

Which societal aspects did Milgram's experiment explore?

The implications of authority, conformity, and human behavior in morally challenging situations.

What were the implications of Milgram’s work for the understanding of human nature?

It suggested that people may prioritize following orders over personal morals.

What were the primary features of the experimental setting?

A controlled laboratory environment emphasizing scientific legitimacy and authority.

What was the significance of 'two teachers' condition in Milgram's variations?

This condition demonstrated how shared responsibility among participants led to higher obedience levels.

What can we infer from the high obedience rates in Milgram’s experiments?

Individual moral beliefs can be overwhelmed by authoritative pressure.

What does the term 'contradictory authorities' imply in Milgram's findings?

Participants were less likely to obey when confronted with conflicting commands from multiple authority figures.

What did Milgram find regarding emotional reactions during resistance?

Participants often exhibited physical signs of distress and unease when resisting authority.

What was a common justification for participants' actions during the study?

They believed they were contributing to scientific knowledge.

How does the Milgram experiment provide a lens for understanding social behavior?

It illustrates the dynamics of authority, obedience, and the complexities of human morality.

What insight does Milgram's research provide regarding the nature of authority?

Legitimacy and expertise of authority figures can significantly drive obedience even at moral costs.

How does Milgram address the psychological impact of his experiment on participants?

He emphasized that distress was temporary and most participants felt glad for their involvement.

What factor significantly affected obedience in Milgram's variations?

Changes to the setting and circumstances, such as the experimenter's presence and the room's prestige.

In terms of group dynamics, what was significant about the ‘social support’ condition?

Participants were less likely to obey when they saw peers refuse to follow orders.

What key takeaway does Milgram highlight in relation to human behavior under duress?

People are capable of administering harm when directed by authority figures, revealing vulnerabilities in moral reasoning.