Term
| METHOD Milgram (1963) Study |
|
Definition
- Subjects 40 males between 20-50 years
- Postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers and labourers
- Paid $4.50 for participating in study at Yale University
- Told a cover story, that they were participating in an experiment on learning, and the effect of punishment.
- Two people that came to participate, of which one was a real participant and the other was an actor
- Drew straws as to who would be the teacher, and the other would be the learner (purposely made the real participant the teacher)
- Shown the “electric chair” and the shock generator
- Every time the learner would get a question wrong, the teacher had to shock the learner, and would increase voltage at every wrong question
- At 300 volts, the ‘leader’ would bang on the window and stopped giving answers
- Teacher was told by the director that no response indicated a wrong response
- Afterwards they were debriefed and told the true scenario |
|
|
Term
| PREDICTED OUTCOME Milgram (1963) Study |
|
Definition
- 14 psychology majors said maximum shock intensity would be used by 1.2% of participants
- 40 psychiatrists said that it would be used by 0.1% of participants
- These judgments were based on the assumption only those with “dispositional abnormalities” would go to the extreme level. |
|
|
Term
| RESULTS Milgram (1963) Study |
|
Definition
Most people went to 450 volts. A few stopped at 300 volts, but most went the whole way.
- If the teacher was supported by a disobedient peer, only 10% fully obeyed |
|
|
Term
| “Obedient” subjects’ responses - Milgram (1963) Study |
|
Definition
180 volts delivered: “He can’t stand it! I’m not going to kill that man in there! You hear him hollering. He can’t stand it. What if something happens to him?...I mean, who is going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?” [The experimenter accepts responsibility] “All right”.
195 volts delivered: “You see he’s hollering. Hear that. Gee, I don’t know” [The experimenter says, “The experiment requires that you go on”] “I know it does sir, but I mean – huh – he don’t know what he’s in for. He’s up to 195 volts” (see text p. 563 and Milgram, 1965)
THESE PEOPLE FELT DISCOMFORT, BUT THE PRODDING OF THE EXPERIMENTER MEANT THEY CONTINUED |
|
|
Term
| Disobedient subjects- Milgram (1963) Study |
|
Definition
“I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking … Well it’s not fair to shock the guy … these are terrific volts. I don’t think this is very humane… Oh, I can’t go on with this, this isn’t right. It’s a hell of an experiment.” [Subject refused to administer any more shocks].
ASSERTIVE RESPONSE, PERSON KNOW THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG
“He is hanging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a man … I’m sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurt his heart. You take your check….”
MORE PASSIVE, APOLOGISING FOR PULLING OUT. |
|
|
Term
| Obedience in Milgram (1963) Study is explained in terms of: |
|
Definition
1. The university setting, worthiness of the study and authority of the experimenter
2. The feeling of commitment and obligation to the experimenter. Second person who disobeyed apologised for quitting.
3. The subject’s inability to check out the ambiguity of the situation with others (thought it was not right that this study was occurring, but since they had no one to discuss this with they kept going)
4. People had become the “agent” of the experimented, “It’s not me, it’s the role that I am playing”
5. Thought there was an ingrained habit of obedience (not as much in the modern individualistic era) |
|
|
Term
| Proximity definition and relation to the Milgram (1963) Study |
|
Definition
When we are closer to people, we feel more for them so we do not want to hurt them. When we are distant from the other person it was not as hard to hurt the other person.
o If a subject only had to enable another person to administer the shock (i.e. was an intermediary bystander) 37/40 (93%) were obedient
o In another scenario, when there was increased proximity in which the teacher had to put the learner’s hand directly on the shock, obedience dropped to 30% |
|
|
