Zusammenfassung der Ressource
obedience: Milgram's research
- why did the Germans follow Hitler and kill so many people?
- more obedient?
- procedure
- advertised for a memory study
- 40 males aged 20-50
- $4.50
- teacher - naive participant.
student - confederate.
experimenter - actor
- shocks from 15v (slight shock) to
450v (XXX danger severe chock)
- experimenter prods - please continue,
the experiment requires you to continue,
you have no other choice
- findings
- no participants stopped below 300v
- 12.5% (5 people) stopped at 300v
- 65% went all the way
- qualitative data
- participants showed:
- extreme tension
- sweat, tremble, stutter, bite lip, groan
- 3 had full blown uncontrollable seizures
- after
- all were debriefed
- told behaviour was normal
- follow up questionnaire - 84% glad
to have participated
- evaluation
- low internal validity
- Orne & Holland
- participants behaved the way they did as they
knew it wasn't real (including shocks)
- Perry
- listened to study and said a
lot of the participants said the
shocks weren't real
- however
- Sheridan & King
- did experiment with a puppy and real shocks
- 54% of males went all the way
- 100% of women went all the way
- Milgram said 70% of people
thought the chocks were real
- good external validity
- central feature = relationship between
participant and experimenter
- the lab reflects wider authority relationships in real life
- research support
- Hofling
- nurses obeying unjustified demands
by doctors was high (21 out of 22)
- the findings of Milgram can be generalised
- supporting replication
- the game of death - French tv 2010
- replicated Milgram's study - had to give shocks to actors live on tv
- 80% delivered max shock
- behaviour was identical - nervous
laughter, nail biting & anxiety
- evaluation +
- alternative explanation - social identity theory
- key to obedience is group identification
- Milgram - participants identified with
experimenter and the science of study
- when they stopped they identified with the victim
- Haslam + Reicher
- studied the behaviour of the participants
- looked at how the prods effected them
- they don't demand obedience but appeal for help with science
- ethical issues
- Baumrind
- high levels of deception
- teacher and learner was random - not
- shocks weren't real