1. Variations
1.1. Experiment 7 (telephonic instructions)
1.2. Aim
1.3. This variation was looking at the proximity of the authority figure and influence on the level in f obedience displayed.
1.4. Procedure
1.5. After giving initial instructions to the teacher (the person that doesn't know about the experiment) face to face, the experimenter left the room and continued to give instructions over the phone.
1.6. What did obedience drop to?
1.7. Obedience dropped to 22.5%.
1.8. What did Milgram observe during Experiment 7 (Telephonic instructions)?
1.9. Milgram observed that participants continued to administer lower shocks rather than increase the voltage. They even lied to the experimenter assuring that they were increasing the shock level.
1.10. What was the slight modification of Experiment 7 (Telephonic Instructions)?
1.11. The slight modification was that the experimenter initially gave telephonic instructions until he exhausted his authority (they wouldn't listen to him), at which point he returned to the laboratory. The participants initial disobedience soon changed to obedience on his return to the laboratory.
1.12. Conclusion
1.13. Milgram concluded that the physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience.
2. Rundown office block (Experiment 10)
3. Aim
3.1. This variation looked at the proximity of the experimenter and the influence on the level of obedience.
3.2. What was the slight modification of Expirment 10 (Rundown office block)
3.3. The same laboratory procedures were followed as in the basement of Yale university, however the building had no furniture.
3.4. What did obedience drop to?
3.5. 47.5%/48%
3.6. Conclusion
3.7. Milgram's conclusion was that the less respectable context (the circumstances that form the setting for an event) reduced the legitimacy (how legit something is) of the study and the status of the authority figure.
4. Situational Variables
4.1. Also known as the foot in the door techniques where by getting someone to do a small request, you make it harder for them to resist a large request.
5. Baseline study (Milgram 1964)
5.1. Aim
5.2. To test if ordinary people would follow orders and give a innocent person potentially harmful shocks.
5.2.1. Method
5.2.2. Laboratory experiment that took place at Yale university’s basement.
5.2.3. Participants
5.2.4. 40 male volunteers that got recruited through the newspaper. They got paid £4/4.50 for their service.
5.2.5. Procedure
5.2.6. confederate was the “learner” in supposed memory and learning test. Participants where the “teacher” who was told to give electric shocks which increased in severity by 15volts each time the “ learner” got the word pairs wrong. Participants faced a shock generator and thought they were giving real electric shocks. Verbal prods such as “please continue” was given.
5.2.7. Results
5.2.8. 100% of the participants gave 300volts. 65% participants have the highest shocks 450volts. Many of the participants showed distress.
5.2.9. Conclusion
5.2.10. Volunteers were willing to shock another person simply because they were told to by someone in authority even when uncomfortable about doing so.
6. GRAVE
6.1. Generalisability
6.2. can we generalise the results of this study to the target population? How big was the sample? Was it representative?
6.3. Reliability
6.4. Can this study be replicated? How good are the controls? Would we get the same results again if we repeated the study?
6.5. Application
6.6. Do the findings of this study suggest any practical applications? Is it relevant to real-life situations.
6.7. Validity
6.8. Is this study measuring what it says it is measuring? Are the taste given to the participants natural? Is the setting natural or artificial?
6.9. Ethics
6.10. Has this study breached any of the ethical guidelines? We’re participants at risk, their rights violated, their privacy invaded?
6.10.1. Example of some Ethical issues
6.10.2. Deception and informed consent - participants gave consent to a study about memory and learning therefore did not the true aims of the study which was obedience.
6.10.3. Right to withdraw - Verbal prods used to keep the participants obeying so they couldn’t leave.
6.10.4. Debrief - participants are fully debriefed therefore they where told the true aim of the study at the end this would give them the chance to withdraw their results if they wanted to they were also introduced to the “victim” to show no harm was done.
6.10.5. Confidentiality - names were not published.
6.10.6. Protection from harm: some participants became visibly distressed - sweating, hand wringing, laughing.
7. Experiment 13 (ordinary man gives orders)
7.1. Procidure
7.2. The experiment was set up in the same way as the original but 3 people arrived at the laboratory. 2 of them where confederate (people that knew the true aim of the study) and 1 real participant. (The person that knows nothing about the study.
7.3. Aim
7.3.1. This variation was testing the role of authority and satatus on obedience.
7.3.2. How many people took part in Experiment 13 (Ordinary man gives orders)
7.3.2.1. 20 people took part in this variation of the study.
7.3.2.2. How many people obeyed by going to 450volts in Experiment 13 (Ordinary man gives orders)?
7.3.2.3. Only 20% of people obeyed to 450volts. 16 out of the 20 participants did not).
7.3.2.4. Conclusion
7.3.2.5. presence of an authority figure (lab coat or person giving orders) leads to high obedience.