PSYC 104 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Gender Role, Contact Hypothesis, Nuremberg
PSYC104 Lecture 7 Notes 5/14/18
- Findings of the Milgram experiment (electric shock teacher-learner)
oWhat is the dependent variable?
Where do people break off compliance of experimental requests in voltages?
What percent of people fully comply with demands? (up to 450 V)
oWhat is the independent variable?
The expectation of how many people would go up to 450 V: 0.1%
oData: How many people comply with experimental instructions?
Can show using survival plots
Y axis: percentage
X axis: voltage
At voltages up to 330 V, remain at 100%, in which everyone is still willing to shock
people
At ~330 V, learner no longer responds. Small drop off
67% of people go all the way to 450 V. 33% stop at 330 V once they think they’ve
killed the learner
oWhy would people shock up to apparent death?
Since people are shocking in small increasing increments, causes slippery slope.
Applying the previous shocks justifies doing the next close shock
Cognitive dissonance: you try to justify your reason for administering shock by
saying it’s very important for the experiment, etc. If you justify your attitudes to
administer a high voltage, the high voltage + 15 V is also justifiable
Exchange theory: teacher tries to give money back to justify stopping the
experiment. Experimenter says you keep the money regardless of continuing or not,
so you feel obligated to continue because you’re keeping the money
There are forces that act on the teacher. The force from learner telling you to stop,
and the force from the experimenter telling you to continue. Can change the effects
of force by changing the distance the teacher is from the learner and the
experimenter
Basic experiment has experimenter right next to you and learner in sound proof
room
Compliance much lower when you’re right next to the learner and the
experimenter is not there
Physical immediacy has big effect on compliance, not experimenter status
Social comparison: your only social referent is the experimenter, someone who is
calm and ensuring you continue. Therefore, you believe it is ok to continue
People do lots of apparently crazy things if people around them also do them
oEthical implications of experiment
Was it ethical to run this experiment?
In the Milgram situation, everyone would kill the learner
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
At voltages up to 330 v, remain at 100%, in which everyone is still willing to shock people. At ~330 v, learner no longer responds. Since people are shocking in small increasing increments, causes slippery slope. Applying the previous shocks justifies doing the next close shock. Cognitive dissonance: you try to justify your reason for administering shock by saying it"s very important for the experiment, etc. If you justify your attitudes to administer a high voltage, the high voltage + 15 v is also justifiable. Exchange theory: teacher tries to give money back to justify stopping the experiment. Experimenter says you keep the money regardless of continuing or not, so you feel obligated to continue because you"re keeping the money. There are forces that act on the teacher. The force from learner telling you to stop, and the force from the experimenter telling you to continue.
