Milgram and Kohlberg

  • Created by: chlopayne
  • Created on: 10-04-19 13:29
View mindmap
  • Milgram and Kohlberg
    • Milgram (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience
      • His interest stemmed from a fascination with Holocaust and Nazi Germany
      • Aim - investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to electric shock someone.
      • How was obedience measured?
        • Volunteers were asked to administer electric shock to another person.
        • How far up the scale of shocks they're willing to go.
        • Some volunteers were an accomplice, electric shocks weren't real.
        • Some volunteers acted as 'teachers' and saw the 'learners' being strapped.
      • Participants?
        • 40 males, ages 20-50. New Haven + surrounding. Range of occupations and education.
      • Experiment?
        • Took place in Psychology Laboratories in Yale.
        • They were told the experiment was to investigate the effect of punishment on learning.
      • Results?
        • Of 40 subjects, all obeyed up to 300 volt - 5 refused to continue after  this point.
        • 26 continued to the end.
        • Many showed signs of nervousness and tension. 3 had 'uncontrollable seizures'.
      • Evaluation?
        • Internal validity
          • Demand characteristic.
          • Orne and Holland (1968) claim it lacks internal validity.
          • Milgram reported 75% of participants thought the shocks were real.
        • Ethical issues
          • Baumrind (1964) claimed he caused psychological damage.
          • Perry (2012) failed in his duty of care of participants.
          • Milgram argues that 84% of participants said they are glad they took part.
    • Kohlberg (1968) The Child as a Moral Philopsopher
      • Kohlberg was influenced by Piaget and believed children cognitively develop trough stages. He disagrees that it's complete by adolescence.
      • Stages of development: As you develop cognitively and develop moral reasoning, you move through the stages.
      • Aim - To show how young adolescents develop into young adulthood, and how they move through the stages of moral development. To asses whether this is cross-cultural.
      • Research method?
        • Longitudinal study over 12 years.
        • Self-report  - hypothetical moral dilemmas.
        • 2 hour interview to answer 10 dilemmas.
      • Sample?
        • 75 American boys, aged 10-16.
        • Studied at 3 year intervals until ages 22-28.
        • Also studied in UK, Canada, Taiwan Mexico and Turkey.
      • Findings?
        • Boys in the research demonstrated each stage of moral reasoning and how values change as they progress through the stages.
        • About 50% of the 6 stages, participants thinking was at a single stage, regardless of the dilemma.
        • `Participants showed progress with increased age.
        • Not all  participants progressed through all stages.
        • Participants progressed through the stages one at a timed in the same order.
        • Cross-cultural findings
          • Mexico and Taiwan development was slower.
          • At age 16, stage 5 thinking was more important in the US than Mexico or Taiwan.
          • In different cultures, middle class children were more advanced in moral judgement.
          • No differences amongst religious and no-religious boys.
      • Evaluation?
        • Sampling
          • Male morality may be different to female morality.
          • Gender-biased.
        • External validity
          • Gillian (1982) - not based on real life decision - hypothetical scenarios.
        • Social desirability bias

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Kohlberg theory of moral understanding resources »