2.  To investigate what level of obedience would be shown when subjects were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

3.  Controlled observation (experimental method)  Conducted in a room at Yale University.  Why can’t we classify this a normal lab. experiment?  No control condition; no IV

4.  Control over environment, therefore controls confounding variables  High reliability  Easy to record; used VCR for later analysis  Quantitative and qualitative data collected  High levels of experimental realism.  Lack of ecological validity – participants know they are taking part in a study.  Low in mundane realism: giving electric shocks to someone is not a normal, everyday activity.

5.  40 males between the ages of 20 and 50  From New Haven area of America  Range of occupations (postal clerks, salesmen, engineers)  Self selected sample (volunteers): Recruited by newspaper article and direct mail advertising, asking for volunteers to take part in study of learning and memory at Yale University.  Paid $4.00

6. You can see that a wide range of occupations were sampled Milgram’s advertisement

7.  Representative: different ages, occupations, and educational levels.

8.  No women - androcentric  Ethnocentric – all American  Self-selected – they all responded to the ad, so may all have similar personality types eg extrovert enough to want to take part in research.

9.  No IV or DV!  If it was considered an experiment what would the IV and DV be?  IV: prods given by the experimenter  DV: shock level that the P goes up to  Measured by: number of volts

10.  All given exactly the same response of the “learner” by tape  All were given the same prods by experimenter.

11. The participant was paired with a colleague of Milgram (the stooge was Mr Wallace) Told they were taking part in an experiment on Memory / Learning Electric Shock machine –slight/severe/danger of severe shock Volts ranged between 15 - 450 volts

12. The participant (teacher) given a mild 15v electric shock to convince them the shocks were genuine. This was the only real shock given. Then stooge wired up to the electric shock machine in next room The experiment began

15.  This machine had 30 switches each labelled with a number from 15-450 volts, in increments of 15. It was also labelled with intensity e.g. very strong shock (195 volts).

16. Teacher read series of word pairs –e.g. blue sky, green grass, red balloon Learner had to memorise these Teacher then reads out one word –e.g. Green ….. Learner to respond with the ‘pair match’

18.  Wrong answers were to be punished with an electric shock.  Each time the “learner” got an answer wrong, the voltage was increased. The teacher also had to announce the voltage each time, thus reminding him of the increasing intensity.  No answer was to count as a wrong answer.

19.  If the subject hesitated, the researcher used a verbal “prod”.  Prod 1: Please continue  Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue  Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue  Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on.

20.  If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer any permanent physical injury, the experimenter said  “Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on.”

21.  If the teacher said that the learner clearly wanted to stop, the experimenter said:  “Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.”

22.  Watch the experiment Watch the experiment

23.  Use the textbook to write up the procedure.  P153/4  Use the headings from the textbook:  Procedure ▪ Learning task ▪ Shock generator ▪ Feedback from victim e.g. signs of protest by victim. ▪ Experimenter feedback. Make sure you include the prods used by the “teacher” in this section.

24.  Estimate how many people you think continued up to 300 volts (when the learner pounded the wall)  Continued past 315 volts (when the learner fell silent)  Continued up to 450 volts (marked XXX)

25.  Number who stopped at “slight shock” (60V) 00  Number who stopped at “moderate shock” (120V) 00  Number who stopped at “strong shock” (180V) 00  Number who stopped at “very strong shock” 00

26.  Number who stopped at Intense Shock (300V): 55  Number who stopped at Extreme Intensity Shock (360V) 88  Number who stopped at Danger: Severe Shock (375V) 11  Number who continued to maximum possible shock (450V):  26 ie 65% of the subjects were prepared to kill someone in a learning experiment and administer the full 450 volts.

28.  “I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking…. Well it’s not fair to shock the guy….these are terrific volts. I don’t think it’s humane…. Oh, I cant go on with this.”  “He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a man…..I’m sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurt his heart. You take your [money]”

29.  Prior to conducting his study, Milgram had interviewed psychiatrists, students, and middle- class adults, asking what level of shock they believed people would administer before refusing to continue.  The psychiatrists predicted that most people would not go beyond the 150-volt mark.  Psychology undergraduates predicted that only 3% out of 100 participants would continue to 450 volts.

30.  Use the textbook (p.156) to summarise the findings.  Use the following headings:  Preliminary notions- what was predicted by others  Experimental results ▪ Subjects accept situation ▪ Signs of extreme tension  Distribution of scores  Qualitative data

31. Finding 1- People were obedient, even though 1. they had been taught from childhood that it is wrong to hurt others 2. The experimenter had no special powers to enforce his commands 3. Disobedience would bring no material loss to the participants. Finding 2- The experiment created great tension in the participants, causing sweating, trembling etc.

32.  During the experiment, almost all subjects appeared very distressed. They were observed to sweat, stutter, bite their lips, groan, dig their fingernails into their flesh…  And three of them had full-blown seizures.  SO WHY DID THEY REMAIN OBEDIENT?

33.  Within your groups, try to list the factors which you think may have contributed to the subjects’ obedience.  We’ll display the flipchart paper around the class; you’ll have a chance to walk around the class and see what other people have written.

34. 1. Prestigious university 2. Subjects assume that the experimenter knows what he is doing, so should be followed. 3. Subjects assume that the learner has consented to take part 4. The subject doesn’t want to disrupt the exp because he feels he is under obligation 5. Subject feels under obligation to continue because he was paid 6. Subjects believe that role of learner was chosen by chance so learner can’t complain 7. Novel situation and subject doesn’t know how to behave 8. Subject assumes discomfort is temporary 9. Since the subject has played the game up to shock level 20, the subject assumes the learner is willing to continue 10. Subject is torn between meeting demands of victim and experimenter 11. The two demands are not equally pressing and legitimate 12. Little time to resolve the conflict; doesn’t know the victim will remain silent for the rest of the experiment 13. The conflict is between two deeply ingrained tendencies: not to harm someone and to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities who ultimately hold the responsibility

35. 1. The study suggests a SITUATIONAL explanation for people’s behaviour. They are obedient due to factors in the environment, rather than due to individual personality traits. 2. Milgram suggested that the results can be explained AGENTIC STATE THEORY. This is where people give up their own responsibility, deferring to those of higher status.

36.  The agency theory is that people act as agents of other people. This means that people do not feel responsible for their own actions, and blame their actions on someone else.  This was one of the reasons for obedience in Milgram's experiment because participants knew that the experimenter was responsible for whatever happened to the "student" who was being shocked, therefore they were more likely to obey.  If participants were told that they were responsible for what happens to the "student" then there would have been a lower level of obedience in Milgram's experiment.

37.  From the study we can infer that… people obey authority figures to the extent where they adopt behaviour which contradicts their own values.  This can be seen in the study where … quote quantitative data (facts/figures) that show that people were obedient. Include the qualitative data as well.  Therefore/However….