case study 2

Aims and context;holocuast where people were instructed to discriminate and commit disturbing acts towards jews because they were told to/adolph eichmann carried out the final solution because he was told to/society believed because germans were different and had authoritarian personality(hostile to those of inferior status,servile to those in higher status)/hannah arendt said that he was a real normal person and just carrying out personality.

Wanted to test germans are different hypothesis.

Procedures;40 20-50 year old males not students self selected sample/yale uni psychology department/met by man in lab coat and another supposed ppt mr wallace a late fifties accountant/were told the experiment was the effects of punishment on learning and one would be teacher and another learner/selected roles from hat mr wallace went first and was therefor always learner/mr wallace was strapped into chair and electrodes/experimentor and learner went next door with generator and was given a 45 volt shock(only real shock of experiment)/generator built by milgram to look authetic switches started at 15 slight shock went up to 450 *** in intervals of 15 volts/teacher read a list of paired words and then the stimulus word of one pair followed by five words/for every incorrect answer mr.wallace received a shock/every successive incorrect answer the shock was increased by 15 volt shocks.

Findings and conclusions;14 psychology students asked to predict and said 0-3% ppt would go to 450 volts/none stopped untill 300 volts where 5 stopped/26(65%)of ppt went up to 450 volts/remarks and outbursts indicated ppt were uncomfortable/14 ppt demonstrated nervous laughter and smiling/sweating trembling stuttering biting lips and groaning were also demonstrated/3 ppt had seizures one of which was so bad the experiment had to be stopped/Concluded that the situations the ppt were in made it difficult for them to disobey/13 characteristics that made this(taking place at yale with a high rep/lab coat and experimentor carries scientific weight/ppt volunteered and therefor feel obliged to carry out orders/ppt who is commanded by authority obeys ordinarily and is a feature of social life.

Methodology:Took place at yale uni Pros;states authority and therefor more likley to obey.Cons;lacks ecological validity not true to life.Volunteer sampling used;Pros;little effort required and therefor cheap and easy to collect ppt and access to variety of ppt.Cons;ppt has special characteristics/lots of time/more motivated/bias sample as unrandom.Experimental validity:ppt may have not believed they were truly giving shocks and therefor experiment may have been suseptible to demand characteristics decreasing validity.Ecological validity;high levels of deception used means that the ppt reactions were true to life and valid/volunteer sample means that sample was unrepresentative of population therefor lacking validity.

Ethics:Distress;ppt were not protected from stress and emotional conflict due to causing pain.Right to withdraw;experiment was not terminated when stres levels were too high.Deception;people were not told the true nature of the experiment and were decieved.

Alternative evidence:Sheridan & king(1972);similar obedience levels when asked to give real electric shocks to puppies/ppt were in the same room and the puppy could seen to be in pain/75% ppt went to max shock level/women obeyed more than men/supports milgrams findings.Burger(2009);partial replication only going up to 150 volts/70%went up to max levels/support milgram but in modern times.Hofling(1966);field study in a hospital/nurses phoned by Dr smith/asked to administer 20mg of astrofen twice the dose/broke three rules/95% nurses obeyed/supports milgrams findings in a real life setting increasing its eco validity.Rank and jacobson(1977)repeated nurse study/triple dose was administered/phone call by doctor known to staff/drug admin was valium(well known)/allowed consultation with peers/only 11% obeyed/contradicts both milgram and hoflings findings.