HideShow resource information
View mindmap
    • AO1
      • AIM
        • To see the extent to which people would obey orders to psychologically harm a stranger being interviewed for a job
        • 39 Dutch participants 18-55 on university campus
          • they were told to make 15 cutting comments during the interview they were told this was because they had to cope with high levels of stress to get the job
            • these ranged from 'your answer to question 9 what wrong' to 'according to the results, you would be better suited for a lower position
              • there were 4 sets of quesions, in the first, no cutting comments were made, in the other 3, 5 were made
                • the interviewee who were stooges, showed increasing signs of stress and appeared to finish in a state of dispair
                  • if they refused to make the comments, they were given 4 prods as in Milgram's study
                    • there were 2 conditions, the first was with the researcher giving the orders present in the room, the second was that the researcher left after he gave the orders
      • FINDINGS
        • 92% of participants made all stressful comments in the first experiment. When questioned, they said the comments were unfair but it was the researchers responsibility if they left distressed.
          • in the second experiment, 36% made the comments with the researcher 16% made the comments without the researcher
        • people in every day situations will generally obey orders even if it will psychologically harm a stranger
    • AO2
      • G-volunteer sample so not representative and sample size not big enough to generalise
      • R-standardised procedure to replicate and prove reliability, recieved similar results as Milgram 1963 and Hofling etal 1966
      • A-appications in understanding obedience and events such as the Holocaust
      • V-ecological validity, although it is more of an every day activity than in Milgram's, it wasnt an everyday activity for the participants they believed that it was a real job interview, so it had high experimental validity
      • E-they were decieved into thinking it was a real interview and that they were harming a stranger. so they didnt give informed consent. they may have suffered stress as they thought they were causing a stranger harm


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »