Obedience: Milgram's research AO3
- Created by: Jordan64
- Created on: 24-08-17 15:20
View mindmap
- Obedience: Milgram's research (1963) AO3
- Limitation Milgram's study: lacked internal validity
- Orne and Holland (1968): suggested participants guessed electric shocks were fake, so Milgram was not testing what he intended to test (obedience)
- Sheridan and King (1972): participants gave real shocks to puppy, 54% of males and 100% females delivered what they thought was fatal shock
- Milgram's follow up questionnaire found that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were genuine
- Sheridan and King (1972): participants gave real shocks to puppy, 54% of males and 100% females delivered what they thought was fatal shock
- Orne and Holland (1968): suggested participants guessed electric shocks were fake, so Milgram was not testing what he intended to test (obedience)
- Strength: good external validity
- Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships
- Hofling (1966): only 1 nurse of 22 disobeyed doctor's unjustified demand for a higher than recommended dosage of medicine to a patient
- Similar studies conducted in real-life settings have found similar results to Milgram's study
- Hofling (1966): only 1 nurse of 22 disobeyed doctor's unjustified demand for a higher than recommended dosage of medicine to a patient
- Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships
- Replications have supported Milgram's research findings
- French documentary: contestants in reality TV game show paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by presenter, to other participants (actors)
- 80% gave maximum 450 volts to the confederate who appeared to be unconscious. The participants showed anxiety similar to Milgram's participants
- Supports Milgram's original conclusions about obedience and authority, showing how his findings were not just a one-off
- 80% gave maximum 450 volts to the confederate who appeared to be unconscious. The participants showed anxiety similar to Milgram's participants
- French documentary: contestants in reality TV game show paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by presenter, to other participants (actors)
- Social identity theory (SIT) alternate explanation to Milgram's
- Obedience is about group identification. Milgram's participants identified with experimenter, when obedience levels fell, participant identified more with victim
- Haslam and Reicher (2012): first three 'prods' appeals to help with science. Only 4th prod demands obedience - every time this was used, participant quit
- Participants did not give shocks due to obedience, but due to identification with experimenter as scientist
- Haslam and Reicher (2012): first three 'prods' appeals to help with science. Only 4th prod demands obedience - every time this was used, participant quit
- Obedience is about group identification. Milgram's participants identified with experimenter, when obedience levels fell, participant identified more with victim
- Ethical issues
- Baumrid (1964): criticised Milgram's deceptions. Participant believed the roles were randomly assigned, not fixed
- Most significant deception was participant believed electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected as deception is betrayal of trust that damages reputation of psychologists and their research
- If a study contravenes the BPS guidelines (deception), then the study is unlikely to be effectively replicated, which may effect validity
- Most significant deception was participant believed electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected as deception is betrayal of trust that damages reputation of psychologists and their research
- Baumrid (1964): criticised Milgram's deceptions. Participant believed the roles were randomly assigned, not fixed
- Limitation Milgram's study: lacked internal validity
Comments
No comments have yet been made