Milgram
-
Milgram initiated his study to test his ‘Germans
are different’ hypothesis in order to explain that the Germans have a basic
character which makes them more obedient in comparison to any other nationality
and would help to explain tyranny (events such as the holocaust.)
The aim of the experiment was to investigate what level of
obedience would be shown by participants were told by an authority figure to
administer electric shock to another person.
IV- Prods given to participants
DV- Degree of obedience measured through the strength and
duration of the shock
Although This Study is often described as an ‘experiment’ there is no control
condition so his results can’t be compared to another group. So a better way to
describe it would be that he used a controlled observation.
Participants and Method
40 males aged 20-50 years old from New Haven. The
participants were self selected and consented to take part in the study of
‘memory and learning’ at Yale University in response to the advertisement that
was published in a local paper and the use of direct mail, these males would be
paid $4.50 just for attending to the study. This was Milgram’s way of making
sure obedience wasn’t going to be affected by the money.
Milgram created a fake- shock generator which consisted of
30 switches in clear 15 volt increments which ranged from 15V-400V. The
generator also had buzzers, flashing lights and moving dials and also the
generator could give a 45 volt shock which would increase the authenticity of
the study as it would appear genuine to the participants taking it especially
with the fact that the study was taking place in a smart psychology lab at Yale
University.
Experimenter was played by a 31 year old biology teacher
who wore a technicians coat and appeared stern and emotionless; he was a
confederate (an actor who was in on the study). The learner was played by Mr. Wallace
who was mild mannered and likable he was also a confederate. The slips of paper
which decided whether the participants were teacher or learner were rigged and both
of the slips said teacher on it. The teacher was always one of the chosen
participants. Teacher and learner were both taken to the adjacent room and the
learner, in the view of the teacher was strapped to the electric chair, this
was to prevent excessive movement. An electrode was attached to the learner
with electrode paste which was said to avoid blisters and burns. Then in front
of the teacher the learner was told that although the shocks might be painful,
they cause no permanent tissue damage. To further enhance the authenticity a
sample shock of 45V was given to the teacher.
The participants were told to read out a series of word
pairs which the learner had to memorise. From the word pairs the participants
would read out one of the word from the pairs and four other words of which one
was the second word of the pair. If the answer was correct the participants
moved on to the next word pair, if the answer was wrong the teacher had to tell
the participants the correct answer and the level of punishments (volts). The
learners predetermined responses were recorded previously and based on a schedule
of 3 wrong answers to one correct. No vocal response was heard after the level
of 300 volts and at 315 volts his answers did not appear on the panel. If the
participants asked for advice like for example should I continue administering the
shocks prods would be given.
Prods
1)
Please continue or please go on
2)
The experiments require that you continue
3)
It is absolutely essential that you continue
4)
You have no choice for you must go on
The prods were given in chronological order so prod 1 would
be given and if the teacher asked if they should continue again then prod 2
would be given so on and only if participants asked. However in the
participants asked if there was any permanent injury given to the learner then special
prods were given.
1)
Although the shocks may be painful, they cause
no permanent tissue damage, so please go on
2)
Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go
on until he has leaned all the word pairs correctly so please go on
Followed by prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary.
The experiment ended
either when 450 volts were reached or the participants walked out.
Analysis
-
A participant who broke off at any point prior to the highest shock level
was called a defiant participant those
who continued up to 450 volts was called an obedient participant,
-
The sessions were filmed and notes were taken of
the latency of the shock and durations of the shocks were timed.
-
The participants were debriefed using open ended
questions to check that no harm was caused using psychometric test via
Personality tests.
-
Participants were also reunited with the learner
and explained to them that their behaviour was normal.
Findings
40 participants obeyed up to 300 volts, Overall 65% of
participants gave shocks of up to 450 volts 35% stopped sometime before 450
volts.
Obedient participants heaved signs of relief or shook their
heads in apparent regret.
Many participants heaved signs of nervousness or tension:
sweating, trembling, lip biting, groaning, digging fingernails into flesh,
nervous laughing fits and uncontrollable seizures were recorded that the
experiment had to be halted.
On a separate rating scale participants were asked how painful
to the learner were the last few shocks 1 (not painful at all) to 14(extremely
painful) the mean was 13.42 which believed that participants though the test
was genuine even though it was fake and study actually studied obedience rather
than memory and learning (don’t get the two mixed up)
Conclusions
Milgram’s results shocked the researcher as they were not expecting such high levels of obedience (the expectation was only 2% of participants to go up to 450 volts)
Milgram’s results shocked the researcher as they were not expecting such high levels of obedience (the expectation was only 2% of participants to go up to 450 volts)
Milgram suggested that because the experiment took place at
a prestigious Yale University that that lent the study it credibility and respect.
Participants thought that the experiment was for a worthy purpose of gaining
advanced knowledge to understanding of learning processes and also they believed
that the victim also volunteered to be in the study so it was up to them to
continue even if the procedure became unpleasant. Also as far as the
participants were concerned the roles of teacher and learner had been allocated
fairly.
Evaluation
Positive
|
Negative
|
Milgram would have not found results that were so true to life if he
had not used deception as this allowed people to behave in naturalistic ways.
The males that replied could somehow be different from the rest of population
which would allow the results to be valid to a certain extent. Psychiatrists
examine participants one year after committing the study and found no long
term damage.
Milgram’s study was cross-culturally replicated and Australia and Italy
gained similar results
The main strength of Milgram’s study was the control he had over the
study.
84% of the participants that were used in a follow up experiment a
year later said that they were happy to be a part of the study and also The
American Association For The Advancement Of Science awarded Milgram for outstanding
contribution of science in 1995.
|
Milgram’s sample was unrepresentative and gender bias as only American
males (which could suggest that Milgram was deliberately
ethno-centric- basing his study on one culture: American Males) were used results could have been different if different cultures or females were used so the study does not reflect general population.
Psychological Association of USA investigated Milgram’s research and
found it to be ethically unacceptable, this can be shown by the prods that were
given which did not allow the participants to withdraw even if that option
was made available. Baumrind (1964) argued that none of the participants were
screened to see if the study would affect them in a negative way which can be
proven by the 1.3% of participants who said they were unhappy to be in the follow
up study one year later.
Orne (1963) stated that the study clearly lacked ecological validity
if procedure was changed to an actual pupil- teacher environment such as a
classroom maybe results would be different.
|
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
Hi to you all Psychology friends and people interested in psychology. Everything mentioned in this post if form the AS Psychology OCR Specification for any more information about this course please go to the OCR Website. I hoped that you have enjoyed reading and revising . If you have further questions please don't hesitate to leave comments down below get intouch with me on twitter and facebook.
Thanks
♥ Nat
No comments:
Post a Comment