Proximity of the experimenter- to see whether lack of physical presence of the experimenter would reduce obedience levels
METHOD:
At Yale University, the experimenter was not in the room; he gave orders over the telephone
However, the experimenter did give the initial instruction in person to create realism
If the participant refused to carry on, after 4 promps, the experimenter came back in
RESULTS:
When instructed and prompted over the phone, from a different room,obedience levels to the maximum voltage fell to 20.5%
Many cheated- missed out shocks/ gave lower ones
CONCLUSION:
The proximity of authority figures affects obedience
1 of 3
Run Down Office Block - Experiment 10
AIM:
To investigate how the social setting affects obedience
METHOD:
Run down office in Bridgeport which had no association to Yale, sparsely furnished
If participants questioned professionalism, they were told it was a private firm conducting an experiment into industry
RESULTS:
48% of participants continued up to the maximum voltage
2 participants refused to give even the lowest shock
Behaviour was more relaxed
CONCLUSION:
Social setting does affect obedience, more complient in scientific/ formal setting
2 of 3
Ordinary Man Gives Orders- Experiment 13
AIM:
To test the role of authority and status on obedience
METHOD:
Experimenter had to leave the study, 1 confederate (timing and recorder) suggested how to carry out the study- didn't say order of pressing shocks or when to give them
13a --> when real participant refuses, a 'bystander' takes over administering the shocks
RESULTS:
20% obedience level up to maximum voltage
13a -->all 16 protested, 68.75% obedience level- 11/16 to maximum shock
5 used physical means such as unplugging the shock generator etc.
CONCLUSION:
Obedience is more passive when it's an authority figure
Comments
No comments have yet been made