Remind yourselves of Milgrams aims, procedure, findings and conclusion. Can we trust his conclusions? Do they relate to ordinary people living in Oxford today? Give reasons for your opinion.

Prepare to answer a question evaluating Milgrams research.

Write an outline of each of the following and explain how it relates to Milgrams method:

Gradual commitment 15V increments foot-in-the-door

The role of buffers Between perpetrator and victim / consequences

Justification of obedience Ideology relate to propeganda / the fake experiment

Agentic state Responsibility with experimenter Free Will / determinism3

Agentic Shift what differences are there between Milgrams experiment and realworld obedience to unjust authority that might make this explanation not valid? Monocausal emphasis why might focusing on obedience miss more important explanations for atrocities? The obedience alibi who is responsible for war crimes? Do we have free will?4

Internal validity: External validity:

Internal validity: an experiment is internally valid if the observed effect can be attributed to the experimental manipulation rather than some other factor (in which case the wrong conclusion mght have been drawn). External validity: an experiment is externally valid if the findings can be generalised beyond the specific situation of the experiment (i.e. to other people, other settings over time).

Participants know people arent harmed in psychology experiments. They knew shocks werent real why have a teacher at all? Distress an act. Holland (1967): 75% of Ps said they didnt believe the deception in replication. But Rosenhan (1969): 70% said they did believe.

Film evidence of real distress. 1 year follow-up questionnaire: small minority express doubts about shocks. Sheridan & King (1972): higher obedience in puppy experiment.

Act as alternative IV and reduce internal validity. Milgrams study carefully controlled, field studies less so.

Demand characteristics Cues as to how Ps are supposed to behave. May have been a factor if shocks were not believed

Ecological validity: can the effect be generalized beyond the situation in the experiment? Population validity: can they be generalized to other groups of people?

Milgrams study actually measured experimenter-participant relationship, not authority-subject. Milgrams response: relationships are basically the same. To what extent has other research backed up Milgrams conclusions?

Coolican (2001): doctor-nurse relationship is special so conclusions dont generalize. Rank & Jacobsen found very low obedience by nurses when they knew the drug and could discuss their actions with colleagues.

Criticize the following studies in terms of internal and/or external validity: Asch Peterson & Peterson Jenkins & Dallenbach

Dicks (1972): interviewed SS and Gestapo personnel claimed they showed same psychological mechanisms of obedience as Milgram described. Mandel (1998): Studied mass killing of jews in Poland in 1942 by reserve police battalion 101 suggested real events and Milgram not related.

15

Commander Major Wilhelm Trapp offered to assign other duties to his men who didnt feel up to killing Jews. 12 out of 500 took up this offer. Battalion members were unsupervised when they personally shot Jews.

What does this case-study tell us about: Proximity to the authority figure? Proximity of the victim?

Presence of allies? Increasing the teachers discretion?

17

Sheridan and King (1972)

Sheridan and King (1972) Students trained puppy using real electric shocks these were small but they could see it and hear its squeals. 75% continued administering shocks after the puppy lost consciousness (actually due to anaesthetic gas).

Hofling et al. (1966)

Hofling et al. (1966) Findings: 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed instructions from unknown doctor over phone for unknown drug (Astroten). Said afterwards they obeyed because expected to obey doctors. Conclusions: Obedience does occur in real situations, though Rank and Jacobsen (1975) found nurses less obedient when allowed to discuss action and drug known.

Bickman (1974)

Bickman (1974) Procedures: Actor dressed as policeman, milkman or casually gave orders in the street e.g. you can't stand there, give this man a quarter. Findings: Pedestrians more likely to obey man in uniform, even a milkman! Conclusions: People more likely to obey someone who appears to be in authority.

Evaluate Milgrams research into obedience in terms of its validity and ethical issues. (12 marks)

Meeus and Raajmakers (1995) Findings: 22 out of 24 participants acting as interviewers continued to put pressure on interviewees, even when they complained. Conclusions: High obedience in face-to-face setting.