Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Psychology - milgram
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Milgrams background | -Jewish and close family suffered because of nazis -wanted to know how holocaust happened -carried out obedience studies |
| What hypothesis did milgram not believe | "Germans are different" |
| What hypothesis did milgram work to prove? | The situational hypothesis suggesting things happen (the holocaust) due to the situation and conditions at the time |
| What is meant by obedience | A type of social influence where by someone follows a direct order from a authoritative figure |
| What research method was used by milgram in this study? | It was a controlled observation in a Laboratory environment |
| Who were the participants in his study? | -Men between the ages of 20-50 -wanted different occupations but NO STUDENTS -all self selected from the new haven area |
| How did milgram obtain his participants? | -offered $4.50 for a memory test in a local newspaper |
| What are disadvantage of self selecting participants? | -some may have done it for the money -all same type of people (helpful) -particular group of people read that newspaper -as they volunteered they may be more obedient |
| What information were the participants given about the study? | -They were told it was to research "the effect of punishment on learning" -the teacher also watched the learner be strapped to a chair and electrodes attached |
| Informations given about shocks and the generator | -teacher was given a shock of 45 volts "to see what it was like". It also showed the machine was on -told the shock was painful but not harmful and would not cause any tissue damage |
| What was the role of the learner? | The learner was to answer the questions and not say anything about the shocks until 300 volts, at this point he was to pound on the wall and not do anything (including answering questions) after that |
| Verbal prods | "Please carry on" "The experiment requires you to continue" "you have no choice, you must go on" |
| What signs did participants display which showed they were uncomfortable? | -"sweat, trembling, stuttering, biting their lip, groaning, digging their fingers into their flesh" -many displayed nervous laughter -3 participants had seizures, one so bad they abandoned the test |
| What did the debriefing consist of? | -discussion with milgram (what the study was about) -assured no shocks delivered and reunited with my Wallace -reassured most people did the same as them in the study |
| What did the follow up monitoring of participants consist of? What were the results? | |
| -one year later an impartial psychologist checked up on participants -they all were given and report of the studies results -also they were asked to do a questionnaire on the study | |
| Quantitative data from milgrams study | -before the study psychologist estimated 1-3% of people would go to 450v, really 65% did -all participants went to 300v |
| Qualitative date from milgrams study | -participants showed signs of stress -14 displayed nervous laughter -3 suffered seizures, 1 so violent the study had to be stopped |
| Conclusions | -proved not only Germans are obedient, proved situations hypothesis (back to his aim) -concluded the situation made it hard for participants to dissobey |
| Milgram concluded there were a number of elements that made it hard to disobey, what were some of these? | -prestigious university location -no one to discuss decisions with -told they would not cause harm -conflict between beliefs of not to cause harm v obey legitimate authority |
| Ethical strengths of the study | -good debriefing (also did the follow up a year later) |
| Ethical weaknesses of the study | -may (or could) have caused psychological harm -decided participants -not confidential -were not told they had the right to withdraw at any point, and were also persuaded to continue -no valid consent (had consent but not for the right thing) |
| Ecological validity | -low as its not a real life situation -does not tell us about obedience in real life (hard to apply to real situations) |
| Data evaluation | -quantitative: number of people going up the scale (could compare people in this study or compare different studies) -qualitative: filmed and what they were doing or how the acted was noted down |
| Sample evaluation | -gender bias -self selected (certain type of people) -wide range of people which is good as it means it is easier to generalise results -culture bias (all from same area) |
| Validity evaluation (how well they achieved the aim) | -if people found out what was going on (only a possibility as evidence goes against this) demand characteristics may be shown -did prove aim by showing obedience -not valid to people not in the age range of 20-50 |
| Reliability evaluation (consistency) | -all followed same procedure (internal reliability) - has been done again, test retest (external reliability) |
| Usefulness of experiment evaluation | -changed opinions of experts (found a lot out about obedience) -proved the situational hypothesis -most people said they would do it again -only can generalise to men age 20-50 so not that useful -may not be useful today (different cultures) |
Created by:
Sean11123