Comparing Experiments into Obedience and Conformity

by mysticalrem (student)

Psychology Homework Rem Begum

AO1: Obedience is the result of social influence, where somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure. It is assumed that without an order a person would have not performed in this manner. An example of an activity of obedience could be if a woman was causing havoc in a restaurant for no reason and then the manager asks her to stop the inappropriate behaviour, therefore the woman agrees; this would be an act of obedience. On the other hand, disobedient behaviour would be the opposite of the previous example and, so in the example the woman might have rebelled or ignored the manager’s request.

Stanley Milgram’s lab experiment was a lab experiment took place in 1963, where he carried out a series of studies to try and shed some light on this aspect of human behaviour.

There were 40 male volunteer’s in Milgram’s study, who were all male, which tells one that it was Endocentric, the volunteers were also all American’s telling us that the experiment was Ethnocentric. From this information we can acknowledge that the experiment will lack ecological validity due to only a small percentage of the population taking part in the sample. The participants were paid $4.50 each and were told that they were going to contribute into the study about the role of punishment in learning, from this we can identify that Milgram had lied to the genuine participants even before the experiment took place, showing the criticism of deception to participants. The genuine participant was given the task of being the teacher, therefore he would administer the shock voltage given to the learner which started and went up by 15 volts every time the learner (confederate) failed to memorise the words. If the teacher hesitated to administer the shock then the researcher would persuade the participant to continue and told them that they are fully responsible for any harm, this was even more believable to the genuine participant as the researchers and Milgram wore a white lab coat as an authority symbol.

The findings convey that all of the genuine participants went up to the voltage of at least 300 on the shock generator, whereas 65% administered the shock up to 450 volts, which is enough to kill a human being. Although most participants found the procedure very stressful and wanted to stop verbally, they continued anyway as the researcher persuaded them to do so. Some participants even displayed signs of extreme anxiety.

Orne and Holland (1968) claimed that the study lacked experimental, internal validity and that the participants ‘were only going along with the act’. Milgram’s lab experiment also lacked resemblance ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

AO2: Milgram’s study had many advantages; however it also gained many criticisms also.

The advantages of Milgram’s lab experiment shows he found out that most people will obey orders that go against their conscience, this tells us that depending on the situation and the authority figure persuading or giving orders to an individual, it can change their action and make them perform acts that they may not have completed otherwise. Milgram also found out that, when people occupy a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy they become liable to those feelings of empathy, compassion and mortality and are inclined towards blind obedience: this unravels that if a person is asked to do obey something by someone in a hierarchy role they are likely to do so even if it could affect their feelings is empathy, compassion and mortality, because this is an example of blind obedience, where an individual can go against their own emotions and morals to please the authority figure.

Milgram also compared his research to the atrocities of WW2 during the happenings of the Holocaust, where, 6.6 million Jews were murdered; Milgram explains that this was caused by the pressures to obey, as serious consequences would have been exploited on a person if they were disobedient towards Nazi policies. It was also discovered that situational factors, and not underlying characteristics (dispositions) caused the torture and killing of innocent people during the Holocaust.

The criticisms of Milgram’s study were ignoring, Ethical guidelines and also deception towards the participants, which caused factors like stress and anxiety to occur (as mentioned previously.

Deception of the participants meant that Milgram gave false information to the participants and also did not tell them that the confederate was actually not given any voltage of current. The participants were also told that the study was about ‘the role of punishment in learning’ however this was false as the study concerned obedience in human behaviour.

The ethical issues raised by other psychologists showed that the study could have potentially caused harm to the participants, however to try and prevent this Milgram tracked each and every participant over the period of 12 months, constantly keeping in touch with the participants.

Milgram’s study had comparisons to Hoffling’s (1966) Field experiment on the obedience of nurses. Where similar to Milgram’s study showed that high levels of obedience was obtained. Hoffling’s study concluded with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying to give the drug. However Hoffling’s experiment was in a natural hospital environment and therefore supported ecological validity, whereas Milgram’s experiment was not set in a natural environment, therefore it could be argued that Hoffling may have achieved more accurate results on obedience. On the other hand Hoffling’s research had a few criticisms also, as the nurses were not allowed to naturally discuss with each other about giving the drug, also the Doctor in the experiment was unknown. Contrary to this Rank and jacobson’s Field experiment concluded that nurses are aware of the toxic effects of a drug and were allowed to interact naturally, therefore they will not give an overdose of the medication just because a doctor/physician orders it. 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed, which displays a large difference from Hoffling’s and Milgram’s obedience rates. The drug in Rank and Jacobson’s experiment was a known drug and the nurses could interact and discuss naturally.

As a result I feel that rank and Jacobson’s experiment was the most ecologically valid, due to the conditions they were in.