1. Obedience: Milgram’s Research
LO: To be able to outline and evaluate Milgram’s experiment
DISCUSS: How might these pictures be linked to the topic of OBEDIENCE?

2. Abu Ghraib abuse

3. “ I was simply obeying orders”

4. Holocaust

5. “ I was simply obeying orders”

6. Nuremberg Trials

7. “ I was simply obeying orders”

8. The Specification - Obedience
Obedience as investigated by Milgram
Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
Situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram.
Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian Personality.

9. Lesson Learning Objectives
Understand
To explain what Obedience is
Apply
To understand and explain Milgram’s research into Obedience
Evaluate
To assess the strengths and weaknesses of Milgram’s research into Obedience

10. What is Obedience? Definition
Obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. The person who gives the order usually has power or authority.

11. Why do you think we obey authority?
Obedience: A form of social influence where a person follows a direct order from somebody in a position of power.
So, why do we obey?
Human nature – dispositional
Experience teaches us authorities are generally trustworthy
Do as you’re told
Personality/ Upbringing
Assume people have more knowledge or expertise
Don’t see consequences of actions
People dislike confrontation
Scared of consequences
Rules

12. Aims of the original study
To investigate how far people will be prepared to go in obeying an authority figure
NOTE: This is Milgram’s ORIGINAL study (sometimes called the baseline study) to which the variations were compared to.
Variations: ARE ON THE SPEC.

13. Method…..Sample
Sample: Forty men aged 20 to 50 from a range of occupations volunteering to take part in a study of “learning and memory” at Yale University. There are 3 evaluation points to make from the above…..sample, validity and ethics.

14. Picture of Yale and application form

15. Method
The “teacher” (or participant) is placed in a room with the authority figure
The “learner” (or confederate, also refered to as Mr Wallace) is strapped to a chair with wires
The authority is made to look superior and legitimate with a white lab coat – represents science.

16. Method/Procedure
The task involved the ‘teacher’ reading out a list of word pairs. The ‘learner’ responded by pressing a switch.
Should an incorrect answer be given, the teacher was to administer an electric shock. The teacher was told that the shocks may be painful but would not be harmful (no lasting tissue damage)
The teacher could hear the learner’s response, but could not see them (ALTHOUGH VARIATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE HERE – YOU WILL SEE LATER!)

17. 35 Volts- Strong shock
95 Volts- Very strong shock
255 Volts- Intense shock
315 volts- Extreme intensity shock
375 volts- Danger- Severe shock
455 volts- XXX

18. Learner’s fake response
105 volts- makes a little grunt
120 volts- says the shocks are painful
150 volts- cries out “ get me out of here . I refuse to go on”
180 volts- shouts “ I can’t stand the pain”
270 volts- lets out an agonising scream, complains of a heart condition
300 volts- desperately shouts that he will give no more answers, complains of chest pains.
315 volts- lets out a violent scream.
350 volts- silence

19. The Orders from Authority
‘Please continue’ or ‘ please go on’
‘ The experiment requires that you continue’
‘ It is essential that you continue’
‘ You have no other choice you must go on”.

20. What % of Ps stopped below 300 volts?
HAVE A GUESS….
What % of Ps stopped below 300 volts?
What % of people when commanded to give an electric shock of 300 volts would obey?
What % of people when commanded to give an electric shock of 450 volts would obey?

21. The Results 300 volts- 100% obedience (no one stopped below 300!)
Qualitative data was also collected – observations of the Ps e.g. extreme tension, sweating, trembling, stuttering – three even had full blown seizures!

22. Conclusion – The impact of situational factors
Ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way.
It is not necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes but ordinary people who are just obeying orders.
Crimes against humanity may be the outcome of situational rather than dispositional factors
An individuals capacity for making independent decisions is suspended under certain situational constraints – namely, being given an order by an authority figure

23. TASK: Write up the Study
Like with Asch’s study, you need to know Milgram in detail.
He is a key figure in psychology and his name is on the spec (which means they can ask a specific question on all his research)
TASK: Set of notes on the method/results/conclusions.
Think about:
Ethical and methodological issues

24. Lesson Learning Objectives
Understand
To explain what Obedience is
Apply
To understand and explain Milgram’s research into Obedience
Evaluate
To assess the strengths and weaknesses of Milgram’s research into Obedience

25. External Validity External validity
The extent to which the study’s results can be generalised beyond the research situation
The setting (was it realistic?)
The sample (was it representative?)
Overall – can we generalize the findings from the experimental situation to other people in other situations?

26. Assessing External Validity – Questions a critic should ask….
ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY - Was the research conducted in a setting that resembles the relevant real-world setting in all important respects?
Was the task “every day”?
Did the sample used in the study contain members which are representative of the population?

27. How can validity issues be supported/challenged with the use of evidence?
A great way to DISCUSS information is by comparing the results of a variety of research studies to see if they all point in the same direction.
Where the validity of a study is in doubt, see if the same or similar results were obtained in a study that used a different methodology.

28. Hofling et al- Natural experiment
At first glance, Milgrams study appears to lack external validity. BUT Milgram argued that the situation in his lab study DOES reflect wider authority relationships in real life – and evidence supports this!
Their participants were 22 nurses who were unaware that a study was taking place. The nurses received a phone call whilst they were working from a ‘Dr Smith’, who instructed them to give 20mg of Astrofen (a drug) to a patient on the ward.
This was twice the maximum dose stated on the bottle, and could have been very harmful to the patient.
However, 21 out of the 22 nurses attempted to give the medication. When 22 other nurses were asked what they would do, 21 of them said they would not give the medication if it was them.

29. External Validity of Milgram
Criticism…
Response…
Milgram’s study involved a bizarre task and an artificial situation. People don’t really behave that way in real life.
But in their field study, Hofling et al found that nurses would obey an order to hurt a patient. This shows that authority can make people do bad things.
FINDINGS CAN BE GENERALISED!
But the nurses were only doing their job. They thought it was for the patient’s benefit. They might not have noticed the incorrect dosage
But in a control condition, different nurses were asked if they would have given the P the drugs and the majority said no. This demonstrates a knowledge of the consequences.

30. External Validity of Milgram
Criticism…
Response…
Milgram only used men in his research. That means that we cannot generalise his results to women. We cannot wholly trust his results.
But Milgram did a later study with female pps and found that the rate of obedience was 65% - exactly the same as in male samples.
This is a DISCUSSION - arguing a point and then counter arguing.
It is something you MUST be able to do effectively in order to gain top A03 marks.

31. Complete the sentences: and attempt a DISCUSSION
CRITIC – COUNTER ARGUMENT – CRITIC – COUNTER ARGUMENT
“Milgram’s study had an unrepresentative sample because…”
“This is a weakness of the methodology because…”
“However, a replication of Milgram’s study with females was conducted and……” [link to how these supports Milgram’s original findings and challenges the idea of him being “unrepresentative.]
“Milgram’s study lacked ecological validity because……..”
“This is challenges Milgram’s conclusions because…”
“However, Milgram’s finding have been supported by more natural, field studies; Hofling who found that…….”
“These findings support Milgram’s because…”
EXT: “Apply it – when nurses obey” – challenge to Hofling.

32. Internal Validity Internal validity
The extent to which a test or research study measures what it was designed to measure
- The extraneous variables and controls (did anything else affect PPs results?)
The demand characteristics (could PPs work out the aims & change their behaviour?)

33. Assessing Internal Validity
Did the researcher remove or control all additional factors that could have affected the PPs’ behaviour? (Lab studies, so control was high…, E.V are controlled….)
Were there any clues (demand characteristics) that could have allowed the PPs to guess the aim? Is there evidence of this?

34. Internal Validity of Milgram
Top of page 23: Use this information to write out the AO3 – Low internal validity paragraph. This is how you should write this in the exam.
Critics argue that the Ps in Milgram’s study did what they did because they did not believe in the set up – they thought the electric shocks were fake. This means that the study lacks internal validity because [explain the links between demand characteristics and internal validity]. However, in a replication by Sheridan and King (1972), [briefly outline method and results]. This therefore suggests that the effects of Milgram’s study were genuine because [explain why].