Social Psychology, Milgram (1963)

Robyn Chamberlain
Mind Map by , created over 5 years ago

A-Level Psychology (AS - 15 Core Studies (OCR)) Mind Map on Social Psychology, Milgram (1963), created by Robyn Chamberlain on 12/09/2013.

580
43
0
Robyn Chamberlain
Created by Robyn Chamberlain over 5 years ago
Psychology - AS -Key Words
Robyn Chamberlain
Developmental Psychology - Samuel and Bryant (1983)
Robyn Chamberlain
Physiological Psychology - Dement & Kleitman (1957)
Robyn Chamberlain
BYU English 11 B Speedback
Becky Kopplin
Hitler's Chancellorship
c7jeremy
Developmental Psychology - Freud, Little Hans (1909)
Robyn Chamberlain
Developmental Psychology- Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)
Robyn Chamberlain
Physiology Psychology - Sperry (1968)
Robyn Chamberlain
Individual Differences - Rosenhan (1973)
Robyn Chamberlain
Physiological Psychology- Maguire et al. (2000)
Robyn Chamberlain
Social Psychology, Milgram (1963)
1 Aim of the Study
1.1 Using situations, like that in Nazi Germany, Milgram wanted to see how ordinary people act in similar situations.
1.1.1 Milgram wanted to study how an authority figure can influence your view or moral in situations in which one person is harming another.
2 Findings
2.1 Data collected
2.1.1 Quantitative
2.1.1.1 The level of shocks admististered.

Annotations:

  • 15 Volts up to 450 Volts Going up by 15 volts for each wrong question.
2.1.1.2 The percentage who went up to 450 volts.

Annotations:

  • 65% of people went up to 450. 26/40 would have killed due to 'just following orders/instructions'.
2.1.2 Qualitative
2.1.2.1 Interviews
2.1.2.2 Comments

Annotations:

  • Comment from a participant during the study; "I think he is trying to communicate, he's knocking. Well it's not fair to shock the guy - these are terrific shocks. I don't think this is very humane. Oh, I can't go on with this."
  • Comment from a participant during the study; "He's banging in there. I think i'm going to chicken out. I want to continue but i cannot do that to a man. I'm sorry, i cannot do that to a man. I'll hurt his heart. Here, take your money."
2.1.2.3 Observations

Annotations:

  • On how the participants acted.
2.2 Participants showed extreme nervousness during the study, more so during the more powerful shocks.

Annotations:

  • Partiicipants were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter. bite their lips, groan and dig their nails into their palms.
2.3 14/40 participants showed signs of nervous laughter and/or smiling.
2.4 2 seizures; one so violent those specific studies had to be stopped.
2.5 After the experiment, many participants gave signs of relief via sighing, mopping their brows, rubbing figures nervously over their eyes or fumbling for cigarettes.
2.5.1 Some shook their head in regret whilst others had shown no signs of tensions throughout the entire experiment.
2.6 No participant stopped prior to the administering of 300 volts.

Annotations:

  • At 300 volts - 5 participants refused to obeying, stopping the experiment. The learning was pounding on the wall.
  • At 315 volts, 4 participants refused to obey.
  • At 330 volts, 2 participants refused to obey. The learner was no longer answering the teacher at all.
  • At 345, 360 and 375 volts, one participant refuesd to obey (in each volt setting).
  • I've memorised this by using the sequence 5,4,2,1,1,1 for the number of people who stopped shocking at and after 300 volts.
3 Participants
3.1 40, 20-50 year old men.

Annotations:

  • Only using men in the study means that the findings cannot be generalised to the whole of a population.
  • The fact the age range is limited to 20-50 year olds also lessons the Ecological Validity, as it is excluding a high percentage of the population,
3.2 The sample was Self-selected

Annotations:

  • This means that the participants, after ealising that they fit into the requirments needed, applied for the experiment themselves.
3.3 Told they would be paid $4 (plus $0.50 for travel) upon entering the university lab.

Annotations:

  • They were tolf they would get paid this no matter what happened in the experiment.
3.4 The men were from a wide sample of backgrounds, from Labourer to White-Collar Workers

Annotations:

  • White-Collar Workers are business workers, proffession office job stuff.
4 Procedure
4.1 1)The participant was paired with a colleague of Milgrams (the Stooge) who was to play the part as the learner.

Annotations:

  • The 'Stooge' was called Mr Wallace). The 'Stooge' may be called a 'Confederate' in the exam.
4.2 2) The participant would be told they were taking part in a memory experiment. This is where the pre-allocated Learner and Teacher get's chosen.

Annotations:

  • The participants selected a strip of paper deeming them a Teacher. This was pre-chosen as there were only slips enscripted with teacher on them.
  • The participants selected first. Obviously.
4.3 3) The participant and stooge were shown the room with the Electric chair and the teacher was sampled a 45 volt shock to make the study more realistic.
4.4 4) The teacher was then taken to the adjoining room which had the shock generator within it whilst the stooge was being wired up to the electric chair in the previous room.
4.5 5) The teacher began to read out the list of words and the experiment starts.
5 Ethical Issues
5.1 Avoidence of Psychological harm
5.1.1 This is a large ethical issue apparent in this study; 2 of the participants had seizures due to the amount of stress caused by the study - Only one did they actually stop the study for due to the seriousness of the procedure.

Annotations:

  • The majoirty of the participants showed signs of tension. guilt. anxiety and severe stress.
5.2 Right to Withdrawal
5.2.1 There were no obvious signs that allowed the participants to withdraw, the researching was the only one in the room to give the participant authority to leave, which he gave the opposite of, the 4th Prod for example.

Annotations:

  • Milgram argued that this was not an ethical issue that should apply to his study as there was no physical means of stopping the participants from leaving.
5.3 Deception
5.3.1 The participants were told that the study was on memory.

Annotations:

  • Which was really a cover story.
5.3.2 They believed they were hurting another person.

Annotations:

  • When in fact it was an actor and pre-recorded sounds.
6 Strengths
6.1 Ecological Validity (Read above note)
6.1.1 Experimental Realism

Annotations:

  • Is the extent to which an experiment can involve a participant and get them to behave in a way that is relevant to the study/experiment/whatever they are meant to be doing.
6.2 Highly Controlled Obervations

Annotations:

  • Allowing for the effects of the experimenter's commands to be observed clearly.
6.3 The fact the participats volunteered

Annotations:

  • This meant they had given consent - which is normally hard to do in the field.
7 Weaknesses
7.1 The Ethical issues

Annotations:

  • Issued in red to the right in detail.
7.2 Sampling

Annotations:

  • This sample was limited - both to the male population and the age range of those males. This means the sample was not representative. Also noted in the 'Participant' section in mustard yellow.
  • As the sample is a self-selected sample, the participants may feel obligated to finish the study despite what they are morally thinking. This means the validity of the study is not as strong as it could be.
  • Other aspects of this study that could compel the participants to feel obligated to carry on with the study is the money that is offered, as the money is given at the start of the experiment, the participants may feel they are duty bound to carry on with the study as they have already been given the money.
  • Milgream did attemot to lessen the feel of obligation by giving the money to the participants at the start of the experiment, and saying that they can keep the money reguardless if they finish the study, so that the participants didn't need to stay if they were only doing the srudy for money.
7.3 Ecological Validity

Annotations:

  • Due this experiment being a Laboratory experiment, the Ecological Validity of the results can be question. As this experiment is not in a natural enviroment the realism of the participants reactions can be questioned.
  • However, as stated in 'Method and Design', experimental realism plays a part in Milgrams experiment. Although fake, the act of harming another human being was very real to the participants meaning that their reaction were most probably how they would react in a similar natural observation.
  • Mundane realism was also high in this study as the participants did act how they would of if the experiment was a real life situation.
8 The Task
8.1 The teacher (the willing participant) had to read out words in pairs and the learner would have to read out the adjoining word to what the teacher said.

Annotations:

  • For example, 'Green' 'Grass'. The teacher would then say 'Green' to the Learner, who would have to reply with 'Grass'  other wise they would be shocked by the rising voltage. 
9 The Prods
9.1 Prod 1: Please continue/Please go on.
9.2 Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.
9.3 Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
9.4 Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on.
9.5 The prods were used as a means to make the participants carry on with the experiment.
10 Obedience
11 Method and Design
11.1 Laborarty Experiment

Annotations:

  • Normally, due to these types experiments being in a  Laboratory, they would lack in Ecological Validity. However, due to the intense and realistic enviroment Milgrams study was set in, it can still be classed as high in Ecological Validity due to it having experimental realism.
11.2 Repeated Measures Design

Annotations:

  • The experiment was repeated 40 times with the 40 different participants.
12 The high level of Authority
12.1 Being at the Prestige University of Yale.

Annotations:

  • Yale is one of the most well known Universities in the U.S.A.
12.2 Money

Annotations:

  • After being given the money, they felt obligated to carrry on and finish the experiment.
  • Milgram tried to make the feeling of obligation of carrying on for the money offered by giving it to them when they enter the laboratory at the start of the experiment.
12.3 It appeared to be an important experiment.
12.4 The researcher acting as a high authority figure.

Annotations:

  • Due to the inferred high authority the researcher had, it made the chance/choice or withdrawal harder for the participants.
12.5 The participant had willingly volunteered to take part in the study.

Annotations:

  • The participant felt as if they should just go through with the experiemnt and get it over and done with.
13 Arguments relating to this study
13.1 Determinism VS Free-will

Annotations:

  • Determinism - The argument that we do not have much control over our own actions,