SI- Milgrams study obedience

What was the aim of Milgram's (1963) obedience study?

to observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person, evaluating the influence of a destructive authority figure.

Describe the procedure of Milgram's (1963) obedience experiment.

Participants were assigned the role of 'teacher' and a confederate the role of 'learner.' The teacher asked the learner questions and administered electric shocks for wrong answers, increasing in 15V increments up to 450V (330V labeled "lethal"). Shocks were fake but believed real. The experimenter gave prods to encourage obedience.

What were the key findings of Milgram's obedience study?

All participants went up to 300V, 65% continued to the maximum 450V shock, and only 12.5% stopped at 300V, showing a majority obeyed authority to a dangerous degree.

What ethical strengths are associated with Milgram's study?

Participants were thoroughly debriefed, with follow-ups showing 84% glad to participate and 74% learning something, indicating minimal lasting psychological harm.

How does Milgram's study have real-life applications?

It explains obedience to destructive authority (e.g., Nazis), raising awareness about authority influence and helping prevent harmful obedience in society.

What evidence supports the internal validity of Milgram's study?

70% of participants believed shocks were real; additional studies like Sheridan and King's puppy shock study also showed high obedience, supporting authenticity of findings.

How is Milgram's study replicable and why is this important?

It has been replicated globally with similar obedience levels (e.g., French TV study "Le Jeu de la Mort" found 85% obedience), increasing reliability of findings.

What external validity evidence supports Milgram's findings?

Hofling et al. (1966) found 95% of nurses obeyed dangerous doctor orders, showing obedience occurs in real-life settings beyond the lab.

What are the main ethical weaknesses of Milgram's study?

Deception prevented informed consent, and participants experienced psychological distress (e.g., trembling, sweating), raising concerns about participant welfare.

What social sensitivity issues does Milgram's research raise?

It implies people who commit atrocities may be excused due to situational pressure, challenging ideas about personal moral responsibility in legal systems.

Why might Milgram's study lack internal validity?

Conducted at prestigious Yale, participants may have trusted no real harm would happen; obedience dropped to 20.5% when replicated in a run-down office, suggesting trust rather than obedience may have been measured.

How does Milgram's experiment lack ecological validity?

The artificial task (flicking a switch to shock) is unlike real-life obedience involving complex moral decisions, limiting generalization.

How does social support influence conformity according to Asch's study?

When a confederate gave the correct answer against the majority, conformity dropped to 25%, as social support increased participant confidence to resist majority influence.

What effect does social support have on obedience in Milgram's variations?

When other participants (confederates) disobeyed, obedience dropped to 10%, showing social support helps people resist authority pressure.