Lesson 5 Obedience and Milgram PDF

OBEDIENCE: Milgram Lesson Objectives: To understand what obedience is and to apply this to understand and evaluate Milgram’s study of obedience. But first, what is the difference between conformity and obedience? Obedience: Milgram Conformity is a form of social influence, where pressure to...

OBEDIENCE: Milgram Lesson Objectives: To understand what obedience is and to apply this to understand and evaluate Milgram’s study of obedience. But first, what is the difference between conformity and obedience? Obedience: Milgram Conformity is a form of social influence, where pressure to conform is exerted by the majority. Conformity doesn’t have to be explicitly stated, we DON’T have to be told to conform. In contrast, Obedience is a form of social influence where people are told what to do. “ A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.” Obedience: Milgram Stanley Milgram (1963) sought an answer to the question of why so many had followed the orders of Hitler and killed over 10 million Jews, Gypsies and members of other social groups during the second world war. He wanted to know why they were so obedient. Obedience study Lets watch the obedience study again. This time using your knowledge of research methods note down factors relating to: Aims Type of experiment. IV and DV Hypothesis Results conclusions https://youtu.be/eTX42lVDwA4  lets think about the research methods… What was the aim?would obey the orders of an authority figure, even when there were fatal consequences. if people What was the type of experiment? periment. IV structured observation (NO IV) DV – Voltage of electric shock to the ‘learner’. (level of obedien were the participant sample and what type of sampling was used? 0 Men aged between 20-50. volunteer sampling What was the hypothesis? Participants would obey orders from a person of authority. (directional) What were the results? rticipants were obedient up until 300V. Between 300V and 375V 14 participants dropped out of the study, eing instructed using the four prods. The remaining 26 (65%) carried on to 450V shock at the end. What were the Conclusions? not have to be a psychopath to obey immoral orders: Ordinary people will do it in the right situation. So what was the right situation? Yale University is a prestigious setting and the participants would be overawed and convinced nothing unethical could go on here The study seemed to have a worthy cause (memory) and was being done to further science. Mr Wallace seemed willing; he had volunteered (or so it seemed) and it was chance that made him the Learner (or so the participants believed). The participants had also volunteered and committed themselves; they were being paid and this carried a sense of obligation. The participants had been assured that the shocks were painful but not dangerous. This was a new situation for the participants and they didn’t know what was appropriate or not. From this study, Milgram went on to develop AGENCY Evaluating Milgram’s study. Internal Validity: According to Orne & Holland (1968)The study could have LOW internal validity as PP’s may not have believed they were really giving electric shocks. BUT…. Milgram claimed PP’s stress reactions (sweating, fidgeting etc) showed they believed the experiment was real. External Validity: Lab experiments would normally have LOW External validity as they are not reflective of real situations. HOWEVER, the central feature of the study was the relationship between the authority figure (experimenter) and the teacher (PP). Therefore, Milgram argued that is was in fact HIGH in external validity as the authority was in the form of the experimenter. Research from Hofling et al (1996) exploring obedience in hospitals supports this. Nurses obeyed doctors’ unjustified demands within a hospital ward. This all suggests that Milgram’s findings can be generalised to other situations. Ethical Issues: The pp’s were deceived about the true nature of the study, therefore they were not able to give informed consent. Extending on Obedience… Milgram decided to identify clear situational factors the affect obedience. He carried out his experiments in lots of slightly different ways to investigate what conditions affected obedience. He identified three key factors of obedience: Proximity (of both the learner and the experimenter) Location (where the experiment was held) Uniform (of the experimenter) Proximity, Location & Uniform Proximity – in the original study, experimenter and teacher were adjoining rooms, so they could hear each other but NOT see each other. When placed in the same room, obedience dropped. Location – In the original study, experiments were conducted at Yale University. A prestigious setting. When conducted in a run-down building, the experimenter had less authority and obedience levels dropped. Uniform – In the original study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat. In a variation, the experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure and the role was taken over by someone in ordinary clothes. Obedience rates dropped. Evaluating Milgram’s situational factors….  Reliability - Bickman (1974), field experiment. Three confederates dressed in a jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guards uniform asked passers-by to perform tasks, i.e. pick up litter. People were 2x more likely to obey instructions from the security guard. Internal Validity - using the variations, it is more likely that PP’s guessed they were being deceived. e.g when the experimenter was called away and a ‘member of the public’ took over. Even Milgram admitted it was so ‘contrived’, pp may guess.  Cross-Cultural Replications – A wide range of research has shown high level of obedience to authority. E.g Miranda et al (1981) 90% obedience in Spanish students. BUT….  Smith & Bond (1998) highlight that the replications of obedience are from mainly western, developed societies (e.g. Spain, Australia).  Because he systematically altered one variable at a time (proximity, uniform, location) while keeping the others the same (responses to questions, prods from experimenter). The study was replicated over and over again.