Milgram’s study of Obedience (1963)
AO1:
o The aim was to see whether Germans are different from other people in order to
carry out such barbaric acts towards Jews and other minority groups.
o Also, to see whether volunteers/participants would obey orders to give electric
shock to someone who they thought was another pp and how far would they go.
o The procedure was that at 300 volts of electric shock, the leaner (confederate Mr
Wallace) banged on the wall and then stopped answering questions, pp was told that
absence of response means no response and are asked to continue the shocks.
o The result was that 65% (26/40) of the 40 male participants continue the electric
shock to the maximum level of 450V and pp thought the experiments was real and
shocks were extremely painful
Extra AO1s:
- Follow up questionnaire, 84% pp glad to take part and none of the pp showed signs
of being psychologically harmed
- Real shock of 45v were given to all pp to convince them that the shock generator
was real
- Task required pp to read out work pairs such as bour box, nice day, wild ducks, given
4 buttons and press correct one each time
- At the end of the experiment, pp’s were debriefed and reintroduces to Mr Wallace
(learner, confederate)
AO3:
Strength:
A strength is that it is reliable as there are tight procedures in the study such as how pp was
only told to move up one switch (15 volts) each time a learner gave the wrong answer to
reduce the guilt of pp from causing pain to learner. Therefore, the well-controlled
procedures are replicable and similar study such as Burger (2009) has been repeated and
similar results are found.
A strength is that it’s applicable to society, the study found that 100% of the 40 male pps
continued the electric shock up to 300 volts. Therefore, this can be used to understand the
concept of obedience and train soldiers to question any unethical orders to prevent future
atrocities such as Abu Grab.
Weakness:
A weakness is that it is not generalisable since Milgram only recruited a total of 40 pps ages
20 to 50 from New Haven area of USA which are non-graduates who answered to an
advertisement of the research. Therefore, the results are not representative of people of
ages out of 20-50, any females, and people of another culture or country.
A weakness is that the study is unethical, results shows that many pp shows signs of
nervousness such as sweating, trembling and groaning when they have to give out shocks.
Therefore, not following the principal of responsibility from BPS ethical guidelines as any
psychological harm or distress to the pp are not minimised.
, Variation on Milgram’s Study:
Telephonic Instructions (Experiment 7)
AO1:
o Aim is to see if it’s easier to resist orders from an authority figure if they are not
close by; whether proximity of experimenter had an influence on the level of
obedience.
o Results were that obedience reduces to 22.5 % with many pp cheatings by missing
gout shocks, gave less shocks and lying to the experimenter and say they increase
the shock when they didn’t.
o At the point when telephonic instructions ended and he refunded to the lab, pp’s
initial disobedience soon changes to obedience upon his return.
AO3:
Strength:
A strength is that it is reliable with well controlled procedures such as how each participant
is first receiving instructions to the teachers face to face, the experimenter then left the
room and continue to give instructions using the telephone. Therefore, these tight
procedures are easily replicable, and when similar procedures are repeated, the results of
obedience through telephone will be similar.
A strength is that it is applicable to society where it is concluded that when experimenter is
not face to face with the pp, it is easier for them no to obey where some pp gave lower
shocks that they should have as the thought they were not being observed. Therefore, can
be applied to police/teachers that authority figure must be presence in order to maintain
high level of obedience.
Weakness:
A weakness is that it unethical since pp were not aware of the fact that they are begin
observed throughout the whole process, even though the experimenter is not presence.
Therefore, the pps are being deceived of the procedure of the variation 7 experiment.
, Rundown Office Block (experiment 10)
AO1:
o Aim was to see whether obedience was due to yale being prestigious as the pervious
pp states that the integrity of yale gives them confidence to take part and would not
have done the same in somewhere else with less respect.
o Procedures were that pp were led to believe the experiment was held by a private
research firm “research associates of Bridgeport” without apparent connection to
Yale university but in a commercial office
o The pp’s were recruited through mailshot recruitment and paid the same for their
time as the original study.
AO3:
Strength:
A strength is that experiment 10 has ecological validity where the study is carried out in a
rundown office bock, opposite some shops in Bridgeport, in a private office; less prestigious
setting not linked to yale. Therefore, more representative of more daily life environments,
so the behaviours observed are more likely to reflect real-life behaviours.
A strength is that it is applicable to society as the results shows that obedience fell to 47.5%
which Milgram believe it was due to private research firm are viewed as less prestigious
than yale. Therefore, can be applied to teachers/soldiers to allow authorities figure to give a
more impactful order in a prestigious environment to maintain high level of obedience.
Weakness:
A weakness is it lacks validity since it shows that during g debriefing, many pp said they
questioned the credential of the company on arrival. Therefore, this may have reduced the
accuracy of the results as pp may not have taken the experiment seriously, and may
purposely not obey, hence not representative of their real-life behaviours.
AO1:
o The aim was to see whether Germans are different from other people in order to
carry out such barbaric acts towards Jews and other minority groups.
o Also, to see whether volunteers/participants would obey orders to give electric
shock to someone who they thought was another pp and how far would they go.
o The procedure was that at 300 volts of electric shock, the leaner (confederate Mr
Wallace) banged on the wall and then stopped answering questions, pp was told that
absence of response means no response and are asked to continue the shocks.
o The result was that 65% (26/40) of the 40 male participants continue the electric
shock to the maximum level of 450V and pp thought the experiments was real and
shocks were extremely painful
Extra AO1s:
- Follow up questionnaire, 84% pp glad to take part and none of the pp showed signs
of being psychologically harmed
- Real shock of 45v were given to all pp to convince them that the shock generator
was real
- Task required pp to read out work pairs such as bour box, nice day, wild ducks, given
4 buttons and press correct one each time
- At the end of the experiment, pp’s were debriefed and reintroduces to Mr Wallace
(learner, confederate)
AO3:
Strength:
A strength is that it is reliable as there are tight procedures in the study such as how pp was
only told to move up one switch (15 volts) each time a learner gave the wrong answer to
reduce the guilt of pp from causing pain to learner. Therefore, the well-controlled
procedures are replicable and similar study such as Burger (2009) has been repeated and
similar results are found.
A strength is that it’s applicable to society, the study found that 100% of the 40 male pps
continued the electric shock up to 300 volts. Therefore, this can be used to understand the
concept of obedience and train soldiers to question any unethical orders to prevent future
atrocities such as Abu Grab.
Weakness:
A weakness is that it is not generalisable since Milgram only recruited a total of 40 pps ages
20 to 50 from New Haven area of USA which are non-graduates who answered to an
advertisement of the research. Therefore, the results are not representative of people of
ages out of 20-50, any females, and people of another culture or country.
A weakness is that the study is unethical, results shows that many pp shows signs of
nervousness such as sweating, trembling and groaning when they have to give out shocks.
Therefore, not following the principal of responsibility from BPS ethical guidelines as any
psychological harm or distress to the pp are not minimised.
, Variation on Milgram’s Study:
Telephonic Instructions (Experiment 7)
AO1:
o Aim is to see if it’s easier to resist orders from an authority figure if they are not
close by; whether proximity of experimenter had an influence on the level of
obedience.
o Results were that obedience reduces to 22.5 % with many pp cheatings by missing
gout shocks, gave less shocks and lying to the experimenter and say they increase
the shock when they didn’t.
o At the point when telephonic instructions ended and he refunded to the lab, pp’s
initial disobedience soon changes to obedience upon his return.
AO3:
Strength:
A strength is that it is reliable with well controlled procedures such as how each participant
is first receiving instructions to the teachers face to face, the experimenter then left the
room and continue to give instructions using the telephone. Therefore, these tight
procedures are easily replicable, and when similar procedures are repeated, the results of
obedience through telephone will be similar.
A strength is that it is applicable to society where it is concluded that when experimenter is
not face to face with the pp, it is easier for them no to obey where some pp gave lower
shocks that they should have as the thought they were not being observed. Therefore, can
be applied to police/teachers that authority figure must be presence in order to maintain
high level of obedience.
Weakness:
A weakness is that it unethical since pp were not aware of the fact that they are begin
observed throughout the whole process, even though the experimenter is not presence.
Therefore, the pps are being deceived of the procedure of the variation 7 experiment.
, Rundown Office Block (experiment 10)
AO1:
o Aim was to see whether obedience was due to yale being prestigious as the pervious
pp states that the integrity of yale gives them confidence to take part and would not
have done the same in somewhere else with less respect.
o Procedures were that pp were led to believe the experiment was held by a private
research firm “research associates of Bridgeport” without apparent connection to
Yale university but in a commercial office
o The pp’s were recruited through mailshot recruitment and paid the same for their
time as the original study.
AO3:
Strength:
A strength is that experiment 10 has ecological validity where the study is carried out in a
rundown office bock, opposite some shops in Bridgeport, in a private office; less prestigious
setting not linked to yale. Therefore, more representative of more daily life environments,
so the behaviours observed are more likely to reflect real-life behaviours.
A strength is that it is applicable to society as the results shows that obedience fell to 47.5%
which Milgram believe it was due to private research firm are viewed as less prestigious
than yale. Therefore, can be applied to teachers/soldiers to allow authorities figure to give a
more impactful order in a prestigious environment to maintain high level of obedience.
Weakness:
A weakness is it lacks validity since it shows that during g debriefing, many pp said they
questioned the credential of the company on arrival. Therefore, this may have reduced the
accuracy of the results as pp may not have taken the experiment seriously, and may
purposely not obey, hence not representative of their real-life behaviours.
