1. Milgram Social Psychology The Core Studies

2. Background WW2 – Looking at why the Nazi's did what they did Obedience – Following a direct order Destructive obedience – following an order to harm Self Preservation – looking after our own welfare Socialisation – “what is socially correct” the way we are taught is the way we behave. Social Hierarchy Milgram set up the study to prove Nazi's were evil Genocide – attempt to wipe out an ethnic group

3. Aim To investigate the process of obedience and to demonstrate the power of a legitimate authority even when the command requires destructive behaviour.

4. Sample 40 men Aged 20-50 Self selected via newspaper article All from the New Haven district of North America

5. Method Controlled observation (features of lab experiment) Snapshot study Independent Measures IV - there isn’t one DV – The obedience of participants (operationalized by how many volts the teacher gave to the learner)

6. Controls Same experimenter Same shock generator Same verbal prods used Experiment was always rigged Same word pairs

7. Procedure Milgram recruited 40 male participants by advertising for volunteers to take part in a study of memory and learning, to take place at Yale university psychology department. Everyone was paid $4.50 and told they would receive this even if they quit during the study. When they arrived, they were met by the experimenter wearing a grey lab coat. They were introduced to Mr Wallace (47 year old accountant), who was a confederate pretending to be another participant. The experiment told the naïve participant and Mr Wallace that the experiment was about the effects of punishment on learning. One of them would be the teacher and one would be the learner but this was rigged so that Mr Wallace was always going to be the learner. The experimenter explained that the punishment would be n electric shock. All three went into an adjoining room. There, the experimenter strapped Mr Wallace to a shock generator and asked if he had any medical conditions, to which Mr Wallace said he had heart problems. The teacher was to deliver shocks via a shock generator which was situated adjacent to the learner (in the next room). It had lots of switches and each switch was clearly marked with a voltage amount.

8. Procedure Starting at 15 volts “slight shock” up to 450 volts “danger-severe shock”. Each switch was set at increments of 15 volts higher than the last. (In reality no shocks were delivered). The teacher was instructed to deliver shocks to the learner every time they made a mistake on the a paired word associate task. Mr Wallace indicated his answer by switching on one of the four lights above the shock generator. With each mistake, the teacher had to give the next highest shock. (A sample shock was given to the teacher at the start of the study to demonstrate that the machine was capable of delivering a dose of electricity). Mr Wallace gave mainly wrong answers and received his (fake) shocks in silence until the teacher reached 300 volts “very strong shock”. At 300 volts, Mr Wallace kicked against the wall that joined the two rooms and then fell silent. He cried out in pain, complaining that his heart was bothering him and then eventually gave no responses. If the teacher asked to stop, the experimenter had a standardized set of prods to repeat “please continue” “the experiment requires you to continue” “it’s absolutely essential that you continue” “you have no choice you must go on”

9. How observations were used Through observations by both the experimenter and additional observers which allowed both qualitative and quantitative data to be gathered. The experimenter and observers watched and most sessions were filmed and occasional photographs were taken through one way mirrors for the effects of the experimenter’s commands to be observed clearly. Notes were taken by the observers of any unusual behaviour that occurred during the experiment and, on occasions they were directed to write objective descriptions of the participants’ behaviour.

10. Results Quantitative data – 100% gave 300 volts and so were considered obedient 65% gave the full 450 volts Average voltage given was 368 volts Qualitative data – Comments and protests made throughout One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits Participants were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their flesh.

11. Factors that encouraged obedience The fact the participant was getting paid The aim seemed worthwhile The learner volunteered so had an obligation to take part The teacher was assured shocks were not dangerous The right to withdraw wasn’t obvious (verbal prods) Experimenter wore a lab coat (enforcing authority) Verbal prods The shocks increased in increments of 15 so seemed smaller

12. Conclusions People are much more obedient to destructive orders than we might expect, and considerably more than psychology students predicted People find obeying destructive orders highly stressful. They obey in spite of their emotional responses. The situation triggers a conflict between two deeply ingrained tendencies : to obey a figure in authority and not to harm people Results supported the situational hypothesis rather than the dispositional hypothesis Nazi Germany could happen again

13. Ethical Guidelines Informed consent is a problem. Participants were told a false aim thus false consent Deception – Participants had no idea about the true aim and the learner faking shocks however this is justified because of demand characteristics. Debriefing – Participants were very well debriefed…but still… Right to withdraw – Not obvious. Verbal prods prevented it Psychological harm – Participants extremely stressed throughout

14. Strengths of the study Mundane realism is very high = higher E.V lower D.C Both data types gathered Large sample size Range of people in sample – more generalizable Participants believe that the study is legitimate

15. Limitations of the study Breaks numerous ethical guidelines Low E.V (Lab, too artificial) Ethnocentric sample which means results collected may not be applicable to men anywhere else

16. Evaluation of Sample Advantages : Large range of people = more generalizable Disadvantages : Ethnocentric sample = All from new haven They were also volunteers and the majority of the population is unlikely to volunteer to take part in research and those who do may be atypical of the target population in some way. Hence there may be problems generalising from these results.

17. Evaluation of Method Advantages : High control over extraneous variables = more reliable Standardised procedure – replicable Both data types recorded Mundane realism = behaviour likely to be representative (lower demand characteristics) Disadvantages : Ethical problems, Low E.V., harder to generalise

18. Changes to the study Include participants from all over America – the original study consisted of participants only from New Haven therefore it isn’t generalizable enough to the wider population. Change the gender of the learner to a woman Change the gender of the experiment to a woman Change sample to opportunist

19. Effects of the changes With more participants this means that the results and conclusion collected are going to be much more generalizable to the wider population however it may take a longer time to conduct the study and gather participants. Changing the gender would give us a different outlook on obedience when the gender is a woman. Opportunist sample means that “less confident” people may take place therefore meaning it could be more representative. However ethics would be a massive problem.