Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986)

Background Meeus and Raaijmakers were critical of Milgram’s research. They thought parts of it were ambiguous – for example, the participants were told the shocks were not dangerous and yet the shock generator said Danger severe shock XXX They thought parts of it were ambiguous – for example, the participants were told the shocks were not dangerous and yet the shock generator said Danger severe shock XXX They also thought that giving shocks was an old fashioned way of punishing people! They also thought that giving shocks was an old fashioned way of punishing people! Thought participants may not have actually believed they were doing any harm to other person. Thought participants may not have actually believed they were doing any harm to other person.

Their aims…. Were to look at obedience in a more up to date way i.e. in more realistic circumstances Were to look at obedience in a more up to date way i.e. in more realistic circumstances They thought psychological violence was more realistic than physical violence They thought psychological violence was more realistic than physical violence They wanted their participants to believe they were doing definite harm to the victim They wanted their participants to believe they were doing definite harm to the victim

In the second part of the study… They wanted to find out if their two variations would reduce obedience as Milgram’s variations did. They wanted to find out if their two variations would reduce obedience as Milgram’s variations did. - The experimenter absent variation - The two disobedient peers variation

Their study was very similar to Milgrams Took place in a modern university in Holland Took place in a modern university in Holland Experimenter: about 30 years, friendly but stern Experimenter: about 30 years, friendly but stern Sample Sample - Original experiment: 39 participants aged between 18 and 55 - Education: at least high school education Answered a newspaper advertisement Answered a newspaper advertisement Participants were paid $13 Participants were paid $13 BUT - Sample included both men and women BUT - Sample included both men and women

 Participants believed that the Psychology department had been commissioned to select candidates for a job  Each applicant was to take a test, which would be administered by the participants  The participants were given the role of ‘interviewer’ and ordered to harass a ‘job applicant’ (actually a confederate) to make him nervous while sitting the test to determine if he would get the job.

39 participants 15 participants in the control group 24 participants in the experimental group

You will be the interviewer and your role will be to harass the job applicant to make him nervous while he is sitting a test to determine whether he gets the job We are researching the relationship between psychological stress and test achievement

The job applicant (confederate of the experimenter) You will have to answer 32 multiple-choice questions which will be read out to you in four sets Poor performance on the test will affect your job prospects

The psychological stress will be measured using these electrodes and displayed on this panel The readings start at 15 which is normal and go up to 65 which indicates intense stress

Remarks Participants were told to make a series of 15 increasingly distressing remarks to the interviewees Participants were told to make a series of 15 increasingly distressing remarks to the interviewees Ranged from “your answer to question 9 is wrong” (the mildest) Ranged from “your answer to question 9 is wrong” (the mildest) to “according to the test it would be better for you to apply for lower functions – this job is too difficult for you” (the harshest) to “according to the test it would be better for you to apply for lower functions – this job is too difficult for you” (the harshest)

Your answer to question 9 was wrong This job is too difficult for you. You are only suited for lower functions My answer was not wrong was it? I want to leave. I do not want to carry on with this interview

Control Group Were given instructions to make remarks but were not told they would need to make all 15 Were given instructions to make remarks but were not told they would need to make all 15 Could choose when to make the negative statements Could choose when to make the negative statements Could stop making them at any time during the test Could stop making them at any time during the test

Applicant - Actor The stooges showed signs of increasing distress throughout the interview The stooges showed signs of increasing distress throughout the interview Two-thirds of the way through the test the ‘interviewee’ accused the researchers of giving false information and withdrew his consent to continue Two-thirds of the way through the test the ‘interviewee’ accused the researchers of giving false information and withdrew his consent to continue Participants were told to ignore outbursts and continue with remarks Participants were told to ignore outbursts and continue with remarks

Experimenter Prods Remember Milgram’s! Remember Milgram’s! Experimenter sat in on interview Experimenter sat in on interview If the participants refused, they were given a series of four prods similar to those in the Milgram experiment If the participants refused, they were given a series of four prods similar to those in the Milgram experiment A participant who made all the stress remarks was seen as obedient and those who refused to make all the stress remarks disobedient A participant who made all the stress remarks was seen as obedient and those who refused to make all the stress remarks disobedient

To sum up….. The applicant was not real! He was an actor! The applicant was not real! He was an actor! He was not really stressed! He was not really stressed! The machine was not real – the applicant did not really get stressed and make mistakes – it was all a cunning plan to see how obedient the participant was! The machine was not real – the applicant did not really get stressed and make mistakes – it was all a cunning plan to see how obedient the participant was!

What did they find??? Do you think more or less people obeyed in this study compared to Milgram’s???

RESULTS The Dutch participants 20 years later were MORE obedient than Milgram’s were! The Dutch participants 20 years later were MORE obedient than Milgram’s were! Milgram found 65% of participants were obedient up to 450 volts. Milgram found 65% of participants were obedient up to 450 volts. Meeus found 92% of participants were fully obedient and made all 15 harassing remarks. Meeus found 92% of participants were fully obedient and made all 15 harassing remarks. In control condition – NO participants made all 15 remarks In control condition – NO participants made all 15 remarks

They also did variations on the study and they found similar results…………. When the experimenter left the room obedience dropped to 23% in Milgram’s study and 36% In Meeus’ When the experimenter left the room obedience dropped to 23% in Milgram’s study and 36% In Meeus’ With disobedient peers (two present who refused to say remarks) obedience dropped to 10% in Milgram’s study and 16% In Meeus’ With disobedient peers (two present who refused to say remarks) obedience dropped to 10% in Milgram’s study and 16% In Meeus’

CONCLUSION… People in an everyday situation like a job interview will generally obey orders to abuse a stranger psychologically People in an everyday situation like a job interview will generally obey orders to abuse a stranger psychologically Rates of obedience were higher than in the Milgram study, as might be expected, as people believed they were upsetting rather than physically hurting someone Rates of obedience were higher than in the Milgram study, as might be expected, as people believed they were upsetting rather than physically hurting someone

CONCLUSION… Meeus and Raaijmaker’s provide evidence for agency theory! Meeus and Raaijmaker’s provide evidence for agency theory! When the experimenter left the room the participants had to take responsibility for their actions and obedience dropped. When the experimenter left the room the participants had to take responsibility for their actions and obedience dropped. When the experimenter was present the participants acted as their agent and most felt it was the experimenter's responsibility not theirs! When the experimenter was present the participants acted as their agent and most felt it was the experimenter's responsibility not theirs!