Obedience 12 a

• 1. Names of Psychologists who found no significant conformity results in an Asch replication in 1980

• 2. Difficulty of the task only effected people with low ____ -______• 3. Conformity was higher in ____________ cultures.• 4. The shallowest type of conformity is…. ?• 5. What year was Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment?• 6. How many days was the experiment supposed to last?• 7. In the BBC prison study, which group failed to conform to their social

role?

EXAM PREP

OUTLINE AND EVALUATE RESEARCH INTO CONFORMITY. (12 MARKS)

• A01 Briefly outline Sherif’s study and explain Asch’s criticism

• A01 Accurate and detailed description of Asch’s study • A03 Evaluate Asch’s study (demand characteristics, validity

and reliability, ethics, practical applications etc.)• A03 Perrin and Spencer (1980) ‘child of its time’• A03 Smith and Bond – collectivist/individualist

• Sherif study – make sure you explain that ppts estimated the movement of the light individually before they were placed in a group

• Then explain that when they were in a group they converged to a similar estimate

• Accurately cite the findings of Asch’s research• Evaluate Asch’s findings using Perrin and Spencer, Smith and Bond etc.• To reach higher band you must comment on specific criticisms – ‘child of

its time’/cultural influences• DO NOT use generic evaluations!!!

OBEDIENCEMILGRAM’S ELECTRIC SHOCK EXPERIMENT

EVALUATE MILGRAM

SITUATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE

RESEARCH AGENTIC STATE

OBEDIENCE

• Acting in response to a direct order from a figure with percieved authority

ASK YOURSELF…

• To what extent will people obey orders? • What factors affect obedience? • How can obedience be explained?• Can anyone become evil through

obedience?

THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENTStanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted astudy focusing on theconflict between obedienceto authority and personal conscience.

He examined justifications

for acts of genocide offered

by those accused at the

Nuremberg War trials. Their

defence was based on

"obedience" - - that they

were just following the

orders of their superiors.

METHOD OF THE EXPERIMENT

Subjects were recruited by newspaper ad. Those Responding would be paid$4.50. Participants weremen between the ages of20 and 50.

In pairs, one man is given a slip of paper telling him he is the ‘teacher’. The other is told that he will be the ‘learner’. They are told the experiment is to see the effects of punishment on learning.

The ‘learner’ goes into a small, sealed roomand the ‘teacher’ sits at a desk in front of avoltage meter. The ‘teacher’is then given a sample 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shockgenerator, as a "sample" of the shock the "learner" will receive during the experiment.

The ‘teacher’ reads out sets of word pairs which he is to teach the learner. e.g. blue hat, red door, green bus, yellow chair… then after 13 pairs he says, ‘green…..A) Hat : B) Door ; C) Bus ; D) Chair ”.

If the ‘learner’ next door says the wrong answer then he is given an electric shock.

PUNISHMENT

Each time the ‘learner’ gets it wrong, the

‘teacher’ has to increase the shock by 15

volts. After some time the ‘learner’ starts

shouting, banging the wall and complaining

of a heart condition. He demands to stop the

experiment and be let out.

The teacher believes that he is

actually giving shocks to the learner

participant. Each ‘teacher’ gets

increasingly worried about the

‘learner’ next door as the horrible

sounds of a man being given electric

shocks coming through the walls.

OBEDIENCE In reality, there are no shocks

being given to the learner. The ‘sounds’ of the learner being ‘shocked’ are provided by a tape recorder. What’s important is that the ‘teachers’ don’t know that and yet they continue to dose out electric shocks.

CONSCIENCE

It is at this point that many people begin to

indicate their desire to stop the experiment

and check on the subject. Many test subjects

pause at 135 volts and begin to question the

purpose of the experiment.

The experimenter (E) persuades the participant (S) to give what the participant believes are painful electric shocks to another participant (A), who is actually a confederate. Many participants continued to give shocks despite pleas for mercy from the ‘learner’.

RESPONSIBILITY?

Some ‘teachers’ begin to laugh nervously

once they hear the screams of pain coming

from the learner. Some continue after

being assured that they will not be held

responsible and that the university will

take the full blame.

AUTHORITY

If, at any time, the ‘teacher’ says he wants to stop the experiment he is told the following in this order:

1. Please continue. 2. The experiment requires you to

continue, please go on. 3. It is essential that you continue. 4. You have no choice, you must

continue.

A “SHOCKING” RESULT

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65% (27 out of 40) of experimental participants administered

the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so.

Everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, some even saying they would return the cheque for the money they were paid…

…but no one stopped below 300v

EVALUATION OF MILGRAM…

• Artificial Setting (Lab Study) means that … • … It does allow control over possible extraneous variables …• … However…• Findings from Lab studies are difficult to apply to real-life due to

their artificial nature…• …Therefore, the study can be said to lack ecological validity as

we cannot assume the findings can be applied to real life scenarios for example obedience from Nazi’s

EVALUATION OF MILGRAM…

• Some ppts may have been aware of the true aims of the experiment…• …Orne & Holland (1968) argued that Milgram’s ppts knew the shocks

were fake due to the calm demeanour of the ‘experimenter’ in the lab coat whilst listening to ‘learner’ screams…

• …The study may therefore have demand characteristics as the ppts may have just been acting in a way to try and please the experimenter knowing that no one was getting harmed…

• …This challenges the internal validity of the experiment as it questions the accuracy of the measurement of obedience.

EVALUATION OF MILGRAM…• Milgram’s study demonstrates Ethnocentricism Gender Bias as

only American men were used…• … This questions the studies population validity as it cannot be

assumed that findings could be generalised across cultures and gender…

• … However…• … Blass (1999) conducted a meta analysis of Milgram’s studies

using both Men and Women and found no significant gender difference in levels of Obedience, suggesting Milgram’s findings can be generalised across sexes.

EVALUATION OF MILGRAM…

• Child of it’s time…? • … Milgram’s results may have merely been a sign of the times

and cannot be applied to modern day…?

EVALUATION OF MILGRAM…

• Child of it’s time…? • … Milgram’s results may have merely been a sign of the times

and cannot be applied to modern day…?• … However… • … Burger (2009) replicated the original experiment and found

almost identical levels of obedience

EVALUATION OF MILGRAM…

• Ethics?!?!?!

• Deception• Right to Withdraw• Informed Consent• Protection from Harm• Confidentiality

ETHICS!

Milgram’s defence• He attempted to get presumptive consent beforehand

• Asked other psychologists to predict the outcome of the study. Most suggested that only 1/100 would go the whole way

• Right to withdraw was possible as 35% did so• PPts were debriefed

ETHICS!

Milgram’s defence• Sent out a questionnaire to 1000 of his ppts afterwards:

• 84% glad to have taken part• 1.3% sorry to have taken part• 74% learnt something of personal importance

VARIATION 1

• The experiment took place in a run down office building

• Higher or lower obedience rate?• 48%

VARIATION 2

• The teacher and learner were in the same room

• Higher or lower obedience rate than the original?• 40%

VARIATION 3

• The teacher had to force the learners hand down on to the shock plate

• Higher or lower obedience rate than the original?• 30%

VARIATION 4

• Experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone

• Higher or lower obedience rate than the original?• 20%

VARIATION 5

• Participants worked in groups to shock the learner. Two rebelled and refused to go on

• Higher or lower obedience rate than the original?• 10%

VARIATION 6

• Someone else administered the shock

• Higher or lower obedience rate than the original?• 92.5%