obedience

obedience

a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order, the person issuing the order is usually an authority figure who has the power to punish

Milgram’s aim

to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person

Milgram's obedience experiment- recruitment

• he recruited 40 American men through a volunteer sample, he told them they were doing a study on the role of punishment on memory and would be paid $4.50 even if they left early

• when they arrived at Yale psychology lab they were introduced to Mr Wallace, confederate, who they thought was a participant

• both men drew either teacher or learner, real participants were always learner

• experimenter in lab coat also in the room

Milgram's obedience experiment- procedure

• the experimenter explained the punishment was electric shocks and strapped Mr Wallace into a chair attached to electrodes, Mr Wallace told them he had a heart condition

• the 'teacher' delivered the electric shocks to the 'learner' via a shock generator in the next room when the learner gave the wrong answer in a word task with voltages from 15V to 450V going up in 15V intervals

• with each mistake the voltage increased, the learner cried out until 300V where they kicked the wall and fell silent, cried out in pain about his heard and went unresponsive

what were the 4 prods the experimenter gave in Milgram’s experiment?

if participants stopped giving shocks, the experimenter gave 1 of 4 prods:

1. please continue/ go on

2. the experiment requires you to continue

3. it is absolutely essential that you continue

4. you have no other choice, you must go on

Milgram’s obedience experiment- findings

• 65% of participants continued to maximum shock of 450V, 100% went to 300V

• of those who refused to continue on the final prod, most stopped around 300V

Milgram’s obedience experiment- behavioural reactions

• participants had extreme reactions, it cause them to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, dig fingers into flesh or nervous laugh

• 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures, one severe enough to halt the experiment

• in post experiment interviews they said the laughter didn't't mean they were enjoying it but 84% said they were glad to have participated

Milgram’s obedience experiment- conclusion

American participants were willing to obey orders even when they may harm another person

strength of Milgram's obedience experiment- replications have supported his findings

• French documentary convinced participants they were taking part in a new game show, they were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (actually confederates) in front of an audience (Beauvois et al. 2012)

• 80% gave the highest shock of 450V to what they thought was an unconscious man, many showed nervous laughter, nail biting and anxiety, suggests Milgram's findings weren't due to special circumstances

• supports his findings about obedience to authority

strength of Milgram's obedience experiment- research support Holfing (1966)

• an unknown doctor was asked to phone 22 nurses while they were on a ward and asked each one to administer an overdose of a drug not on their ward list

• 95% of nurses started to administer the drug without question

• suggests Milgram's findings are valid

evaluation of Milgram's obedience experiment- ethical issues

• participants were deceived through 'random' allocation to roles and the shocks however he debriefed participants and offered counselling, they didn't provide informed consent

• Baumrind (1964) believes deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers regardless of debriefing

• therefore research can damage reputations of psychologists and their research in the public eye

weakness of Milgram's obedience experiment- the findings are not due to blind obedience (alternative explanation)

• Haslam (2014) found all Milgram's participants obeyed when the experimenter gave the first 3 verbal prods but all given the 4th prod disobeyed

• social identity theory suggests participants only obeyed when they liked the scientific aims of the study but the 4th prod required blind obedience

• shows findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not blind obedience to authority

weakness of Milgram's obedience experiment- low internal validity

• Milgram may not have been testing what he intended to test, he reported 75% of participants thought shocks were genuine, Ome & Holland (1968) argued participants behaved like that as they knew they were play acting

• Perry (2013) listened to tapes of participants and suggested only 1/2 thought shocks were real, with 2/3 disobeying

• participants may have been showing demand characteristics

strength of Milgram's obedience experiment- low internal validity counterpoint

• Sheridan & King (1972) found participants gave real but reduced shocks to a puppy when told by an experimenter, while the animal showed genuine distress 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock

• Milgram's findings may have been genuine because they were mirrored when shocks were real

strength of Milgram's obedience experiment- research support Rank & Jacobson (1977)

• replicated Holfing's research but nurses were told by a familiar doctor to administer an overdose of valium, a real drug nurses know well instead of being given an order over the phone to administer an unknown drug

• nurses were allowed to discuss the order with each other, only 2 of the nurses obeyed