05 obedience research 2010

8/2/2019 05 Obedience Research 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/05-obedience-research-2010 1/24

Dog – chair Star – hat Table – cloud Bear – flower Hat – moon Man – sky

Bush – sofa Grass – arm Rabbit – pen Hand – plate

Sea – book Cow – hill Cupboard – cat Air – paper River – shelf Foot – wall

Leaf – eye Hair – carpet Bed – fish Roof – bag



You need to:

Describe in detail Milgram’s research intoobedience including variations and what theyshow.

Outline other research including field studiesand relate these to Milgram’s conclusions.

Evaluate Milgram’s research in terms of itsvalidity and ethical issues.



Obedience to authorityMilgram (1963)



To investigate whether ordinary people (not just German soldiers – the 'Germans aredifferent' hypothesis) will obey a legitimate

authority even when required to injureanother person – i.e. obedience to unjustauthority.



40 males volunteered for learningexperiment at Yale University, given role of ‘teacher’ and asked to administer shocks to

‘learner’ (a confederate). As shocks increased, teacher encouraged to

continue despite pre-arranged objections

from learner ('experimenter' script e.g. “theexperiment requires that you continue”.) Participants told at start they were free to

leave.



Psychology students interviewed beforeexperiment estimated less than 1% would

go to the maximum level (450 volts). In fact 65% of participants continued to

maximum (showing signs of distress). Only 5 participants (12.5%) stopped at 300

volts, the point at which the learner firstobjected.



Ordinary people are obedient to unjust authority. This suggests that it is not evil people who commit

evil crimes, but ordinary people who are just

obeying orders. A situational rather than dispositional explanation

for obedience. People enter an 'agentic state' where they give up

control over their actions. ‘Graduated commitment’ is also important.



Variations on Milgram



(1) Demand characteristics may have led tounnaturally high obedience, e.g. prestigiousUniversity setting. (did participants really

believe the deception?) (2) Individual differences – not everyone was

obedient (population/historical effect?)



What do variations on the original Milgramexperiment suggest about the psychological

processes involved in obedience to authority?



Sheridan and King (1972)



Sheridan and King (1972)

Students trained puppy using real electric shocks – these were small but they could see it

and hear its squeals.

75% continued administering shocks after the puppy lost consciousness (actually due to

anaesthetic gas).



Hofling et al . (1966)



Hofling et al . (1966)

Findings: 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed

instructions from unknown doctor over phonefor unknown drug (Astroten). Said afterwardsthey obeyed because expected to obeydoctors.

Conclusions: Obedience does occur in realsituations, though Rank and Jacobsen (1975)found nurses less obedient when allowed to

discuss action and drug known.



Bickman (1974)



Bickman (1974) Procedures: Actor dressed as policeman,

milkman or casually gave orders in the

street e.g. “you can't stand there”, “give thisman a quarter”.

Findings: Pedestrians more likely to obey

man in uniform, even a milkman! Conclusions: People more likely to obey

someone who appears to be in authority.



Evaluate Milgram’s research into obediencein terms of its validity and ethical issues. (12

marks)



Meeus and Raajmakers (1995) Findings: 22 out of 24 participants acting as

interviewers continued to put pressure on

interviewees, even when they complained. Conclusions: High obedience in face-to-face

setting.



Mandel (1998) Findings: Officers of Reserve Police Battalion

101 in Poland in World War II obeyed orders

to kill Jews despite close proximity, absenceof authority figure, and presence of disobedient peers.

Conclusions: Other factors influenceobedience in real life.

05 obedience research 2010

Documents