Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Milgram’s Study (AO1- DESCRIPTION (RESULTS (100%- up to 300V
12.5% (5)-…
Milgram’s Study
AO1- DESCRIPTION
AIM
To observe whether people obey a authority figure when told to harm another- evaluating the influence of a destructive - obedience
PARTICIPANTS
-
-confederate- learner who was strapped in an electric chair- actor
-participant always teacher
-confederate- experimenter w/ lab coat- actor
PROCEDURE
Teacher gave learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time he made a mistake
15 volts: slight shock - 450 volts: danger-severe shock
@ 300 volts
@ 315 volts
experimenter gave standard probs
-
AO3- EVALUATION
Link- This suggests the effect of the study were genuine - people behaved the same way w/ real shocks.
Explanation- argued that participants showed demand characteristics= did not really believe in the set up - not testing what he intended to test.
recent research confirms this- listened to tapes of Milg. participants = 70% expressed doubts
however reseachers conducted a similar study where real shock were given to puppies. = 54% males 100% females delivered fatal shocks.
-
Link-Suggests the processes of obedience to authority that occurred in the study can be generalised to other situations
Findings= valuable-how obedience operates in R.L
Explanation- Milg. argued- the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in R.L
other research support this argument-
eg, in 1966 someone studied nurses + found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were high- 21/22 obeyed
-
Link- replication supports Milg. original conclusions about obedience to authority
-demonstrates his findings were not just a one off chance
therefore it is not historically bias + is reliable
Explanation- there was a documentary on French TV in 2010 inc. rep of Milg. study..
-participants believed they were contestants in a pilot episode forma new game show
paid to give electric shock to confederate who were role playing
in front of an audience
85% gave max. 450V to an apparent unconscious man.
Their behaviour was like Milg.’s participants eg, signs of anxiety
-
Link-Such finding were in another research showing these results are not due to participants differences.
-Deception of P may also make them less likely to volunteer in the future.
Explanation Baumrind criticised Milg’s deceptions. Participants believed the allocation of roles were random but it was fixed + believed electric shocks were real.
Baumrind objected because deception is betrayal of trust that damages the rep of psychologists + their research
-