level: Situational factors for obedience, Milgram
Questions and Answers List
Variations of Milgram and AO3
level questions: Situational factors for obedience, Milgram
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What were the 3 variations of Milgram's experiment? | Proximity, uniform, location |
| The 2 conditions for the proximity variation? | 1: Teacher and learner were seated in the same room along with the experimenter 2: Teacher and learner seated in the same room and experimenter gave orders over the phone |
| Results for the proximity conditions ? | 1: 65% to 40% 2:65% to 21% |
| Conclusion for proximity variation? | When seated in the same room as learner they felt more responsible to the confederates pain, so obidience dropped. The 2nd variation, they felt like they could avoid punishment if they didn't administer the volts |
| Procedure for Location varation? | The original experiment, the location was prestigious. This time it was in a rundown building in Bridgeport, connecticut. |
| Findings and conclusion for loaction variation? | 65% to 47.5% Highlights immportance of location, prestigious university commands respect and obedience |
| Procedure for uniform variation? | The experimenter was called away (he worse lab coat) then was replaced with a confederate in normal clothes. He came up with the idea to increase the voltage with every mistake, rather than the experimenter like the original |
| Findings and conclusion for uniform ? | 65% dropped to 20% |
| A strength of Milgram's study? | Standardiesed procedures, the same confederates and same actors and pre-recorded sounds. The script that the experimenter had to follow were the same. Allows for consistancy and for it be replicated |
| A strength of Milgram's study? | Real world application. Tarnow (2000) pilots failed to monitor challenge errors made by captain. Shows the hesitance to disobey authority even if other lives are at risk. Challange in authority could imrpove cockpit behaviour and reduce crashes by 20%. |
| A weakness of Milgram's study? | Ppts might have not believed that the shocks were actually real. Orne and Holland, said that they obyed becuase they knew that the situation ws fake, and they weren't concerned for the learner. Supported by Perry (2012) who had footage of ppts expressing suspicion for the authenticity of the machine. Therefore, lack of internal validity of results |
| A weakness of Milgram's study? | Critisied of having multiple ethical issues. Baumrind argued that there was psychological harm, and it was unacceptable. Milgram siad that he offered a debriefing of mitigate negative psychological effects. But there is still psychological harm and also they were decieved. (though that was needed for the experiment) |
| A wekaness of orginal Milgram study? | There is a cultural bias. Varying results. In Germany, Mantell, 85% of males were obidient. In Australia, Kilham and Maan, 16% of females were obidient. |
| A weakness of variation study Milgram? | Contradictory research. Rank and Jacobson, nurses given orders over the phone from someone they didn't know to give a dose over maximum dosage, only 11% of ppts obeyed. |
| A strength of variation (uniform) for Milgram? | Bickman - tested obedience with uniform, had actors dressed as a gaurd, milkman and normal clothes. Asked filed experiment participants to perform a task. 76% obeyed the gaurd, 47% obeyed the milkman, 30% the person in normal clothes. |