Psychology: Social psychology: Case Study 4: Experiments in intergroup discrimination

Psychology: Social psychology: Case Study 4: Experiments in intergroup discrimination

Author: Tajfel (1970)

Key term: Intergroup discrimination

Background: Tajfel believes that we as people categorize everything - including other people. As children, we decide who we like and don't like, putting things into an order that is easier and simpler to understand and deal with. We categorize people into 'us' and 'them', 'we' and 'they' - an 'in-group' and 'out-group'. The implication of this prejudice is we develop a 'generic norm of behavior' - a way of behaving in society and toward other people, favoring people in our in-group (anything can create an in-group; race, age, gender, likes, dislikes, etc) and discriminating against those in the out-group.

Prejudice - Forming an opinion before knowing the facts 

Aim/hypothesis: 

• Study 1: Test the theory that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination will be shown even in the categorization into minimal groups (over and under estimating number of dots)- will just merely being in different groups cause discrimination?
• Study 2: Validate study 1 using a different criteria for minimal groups (artistic preference)

Method: Laboratory experiment

Variables:

• Independent variables:
  Study 1: Two conditions -
   Groups 'over-estimators of dots' and 'under-estimators of dots'  For half the boys, they were told some boys were more accurate at estimating than others.
  Study 2: Two conditions - groups 'preference for Klee' and 'preference for Kandinsky' (artists)
  However... The boys only thought they were sorted into these two groups - but each boy is in both in-group and out-group.
• Dependent variables: Choice of points made by the boys on each matrix.

Design: Repeated measures - Each boy is in both the in-group and out-group, although they were deceived into thinking that they were in different groups depending on their estimation of dots and preference of Klee and Kandinsky.

Participants/ Sampling technique:

• Study 1: 64 boys aged 14-15 from a comprehensive school in Bristol, UK. All the boys were in the same house and knew each other.
• Study 2: 3 new groups, 16 boys in each group from the same school as Study 1 - 68 boys in total, but only 48 boys did the experiment in the end.
• Probably opportunity sampling because boys were from the same school 

Experimenters: Unknown - probably Tajfel himself.

Apparatus:

• Study 1: Booklet with 18 matrices; 6 different matrices for 3 variables: ingroup choice (ingroup-ingroup), outgroup choice (outgroup-outgroup) and intergroup choice (ingroup-outgroup). In-group was always on the top row.

Example of a matrix used in study 1. 

• Study 2: 12 slides - 6 pictures by the artist Klee, 6 pictures by the artist Kandinsky. Booklet with 4 different matrices for the same 3 variables. One major difference was these matrices were employed to allow experimenters to investigate these three variables;
   Maximum joint profit (giving the largest reward to both groups)
   Largest possible reward to ingroup (largest reward to boy of their group regardless of the reward to outgroup)
   Maximum difference (largest difference in points in favour to the ingroup)
  The outgroup was also the top row in some of the matrices.

Eg. of matrix in booklet for study 2

Example of the variables that experimenters could investigate in the matrices in study 2

No box allows equal marks to be given - the marker has to favour one or the other boy.
Matrices are scored on a scale of 1-14.
Matrices consist of 13 boxes.

Each point was worth 1/10 of a 

Controls:

• All the boys received the same instructions.
• All boys completed the booklet separately in individual cubicles - no conformity or copying.
• Boys did not know who they were allocating rewards to, each boy was given a code name - prevent bias
• Boys could not allocate points to themselves - prevent bias
• In Study 2 signatures of Klee and Kandinsky were removed from the paintings shown to the boys so they would not know they were randomly allocated.
• Study 2 allows investigation of max. diff., max joint profit and max. profit - elimination of EVs
• Some matrices in Study 2 had the outgroup as the top row - elimination of EVs

Procedure:

• Study 1 - Estimating dots:

1. The 64 boys arrived in the laboratory in groups of 8.
2. They were told the experiment was on 'visual judgement' and shown 40 slides of varying numbers of dots and told to estimate the number of dots.
3. They were then divided into groups of  'over-estimators' and 'under-estimators' but the groups were actually randomly allocated
4. Half of the boys (4 groups of 8) were told some people in the group were 'better as estimating' than others.
5. Each boy was given a booklet of the matrices to complete alone. The boys would choose a column in the matrix with two different points they wished to allocate to two boys.
6. Boys were told each point was worth 1/10 of a penny 

• Study 2 - Aesthetic preference:

1. 68 boys arrived in the laboratory in groups of 16. 
2. They were told the experiment was about 'aesthetic preference for two foreign painters' and shown 12 slides of paintings - 6 by Klee, 6 by Kandinky. Autographs of the painters were removed.
3. The boys completed a booklet of the 12 matrices for Study 2.

Data: Quantitative data - the points boys chose in each matrix were totalled; they were not asked why they allocated those points.

Results:

Study 1: 

• The results were scored on a scale of 1-14, 1 being minimum amount of points possible and 14 being the max. amount of points possible to a fellow ingroup member.
   For the ingroup-ingroup and outgroup-outgroup matrices, the average result was 7.5 out of 14.
• This shows that for same group matrices, the boys gave both boys in the matrix points that were as close as possible to being fair. 
• However, when it came to intergroup choices, the boys allocated more points to their ingroup; the average score was 9 out of 14. This difference is statistically significant.

Study 2: 

• Study 2 was to further investigate the findings in Study 1, the relative weightings given to three variables - max. diff., max. joint profit, and max. in-group profit. 
• The boys did not choose the max. joint profit rewards to both in-group and out-group or maximum in-group profit, despite them all knowing each other. 
• Instead, they chose maximum difference, meaning that although the in-group got less overall, the out-group got less than the in-group. 
• Maximumising the difference between the two groups, even if it meant less profit for the group, was more important than maximum profit.

Findings:

• Study 1: The boys showed in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination even on the basis of 'flimsy and unimportant criteria' (in this study, being an over/under-estimator of dots).
• Study 2: The boys discriminated the out-group, choosing to maximise the difference between the two groups instead of maximum profit on the basis of 'flimsy and unimportant criteria' (in this study, artistic preference)

Conclusion:

• When people are placed in a group based on a similar characteristic they share, no matter what kind of characteristic, they will favor those in their group and there will be discrimination towards people who don't have that characteristic.
• If school boys showed this trait even over a small difference, this proves that bigger differences (race, religion) can cause more inter-group conflict.
• Competition vastly increases inter-group conflict as shown in Sherif's Robbers cave experiment.

Strengths

• Laboratory experiment - High levels of control - Confidence that IV directly affects DV
  Autographs removed from paintings so boys did not know they were randomly assigned into groups
   -Each boy did his experiment individually so there was no copying and bias
   -Boys knew they were not allocating points to themselves
   -Names were not used in the booklets - boys only saw code names, not the real names of the boys they were allocating points to
• Laboratory experiment - High levels of control - Reliable, can be repeated and results should be the same 
• Quantitative data - Easy to analyze and objective - Results show clearly that boys favored the in-group from the points allocated

Weaknesses

• Laboratory experiment - Lacks ecological validity  - A laboratory where boys have to sit in a cubicle and mark matrices is not normal in real life 
• Quantitative data - We don't know why those boys allocated the points the way they did, there could be another reason besides grouping
• Reductionism - This study generalizes the world from a bunch of boys in a school in UK, maybe only teenagers in UK act like this.
  - All the boys knew each other - Strangers may behave differently in the same experiment 

Ethics

• Use of money is considered unethical
• Deception
   -Boys did not know the experiment was on inter-group discrimination - They were told the experiment was on "visual judgement" and "aesthetic preference", and the booklets were on "judgement". This is unethical because the boys were not told the real intention of the experiment.
   

Psychology: Social psychology: Case study: 3: Good Samaritan

Psychology: Social psychology: Case study: 3: Good Samaritan

Authors: Piliavin et al. (1969)

Key term:  Subway Samaritans

Background: In 1964, Kitty Genovese was brutally stabbed and murdered in a neighborhood with apparently approximately 38 witnesses, where no-one called the police or went out to help, causing psychologists to conduct research into this behaviour which later become known as the bystander effect - when individuals do not offer help in the presence of other bystanders; and diffusion of responsibility - the bigger the group, the less likely people are to help.

Aim/Hypothesis: There are four aims to this experiment:

1. Test diffusion of responsibility in a real-life setting.
2. The effect of the type and race of victim on the speed, frequency and race of helper. Would someone who was ill more likely to get help than someone's who was drunk (at their own fault)? Are people more likely to help someone of their own race?
3. Effects of modelling - Are people more likely to help when they see someone else helping?
4. Examine relationship between size of group, frequency and time of helping response.

Method: Field experiment and non-participant, naturalistic observation (conductor of experiment not in the experiment).

Variables: 

• Independent variables:

1. Type of victim (ill/drunk)
2. Race of victim (black/white)
3. Model conditions
   -Critical-early: Model in same carriage as victim, helps 70 seconds after victim falls.
   -Critical-late: Model in same carriage as victim, helps 150 seconds after victim falls.
   -Adjacent-early: Model in adjacent carriage as victim, helps 70 seconds after victim falls.
   -Adjacent-late: Model in adjacent carriage as victim, helps 150 seconds after victim falls. 

• Dependent variables:

1. Frequency of helping
2. Speed of helper
3. Race of helper
4. Gender of helper
5. Comments made by passengers

Design: Independent groups - people on the subway only experienced an ill black trial, ill white trial, drunk black trial or drunk white trial. 

Setting: 

• New York City 
• 7 1/2 minute train journey 
• IND (independent line) from 59th street station to 125th street station.

Experimenters: Students from Columbia University. 

4 teams of 4; 1 male victim, 1 male model, 2 female observers. In total; 

• 4 male victims (1 black and 3 white, aged 26-35)
• 4 male models (all white, aged 24-29) 
• 8 female observers. 

Participants/ Sampling technique: 

• 4450 men and women traveling between 11am and 3pm. 
• Unaware they were in an experiment. 
• 45% black and 55% white. 
• Sample was self-selecting because it consisted of participants who were on the train at that time.

Apparatus: 

• Subway train (old model which observers could sit in the same place each time) which only had 13 seats. 
• All victims dressed in Eisenhower jackets and old slacks (no tie). 
• Victim in ill condition: black cane
• Victim in drunk condition: smelled of alcohol, had a liquor bottle in a brown bag. 

Controls:

• Same 7 1/2 train journey for all trials
• Victims wore same clothes and fell over at the same time (after 70 seconds) in the same place and the same way.
• Started the journey in the same place (observer 1 in adjacent carriage near exit, observer 2 in adjacent carriage in far corner.

Procedure

1. Members of the team of four position themselves in the specific locations on the train.
2. Subway leaves the station, 70 seconds later, victim (black/white and ill/drunk) staggers forward, collapses and remains on the floor, staring at the ceiling of the carriage.
3. If no one helps, the model intervenes. One of the four model conditions used (above in independent variables).
4. Observer 1 records: Gender, race and location of passengers (seated or standing) in critical carriage, total number of passengers, total number who went to help.
   Observer 2 records: Gender, race and location of passengers in adjacent area, time taken for first passenger to help, time taken for someone to help the model.
   Both observers record comments by passengers sitting next to them. 
5. If no one helps, the model helps the victim to his feet. At the next station the team of four get off the train, cross over and repeat procedure on the train going in the opposite direction. 6-8 trials completed in a day.

Data:

• Quantitative data: Demographic characteristics (gender, race), frequency of helping, speed of helping, etc.
• Qualitative data: Comments made by passengers

Findings:`

• 43 people present in each carriage
• Total 103 trials
• 78% of victims received spontaneous help
• Ill victim: Spontaneous help on 62 out of 63 trials - model only helped 3 times. Median helping time was 5 seconds.
• Drunk victim: Spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials. Median helping time was 109 seconds.
• When spontaneous help was given, on 60% of the 81 trials two, three or more helpers joined. No difference between black or white, ill or white victim. If one person helped others join.
• 60% of first helpers in critical area were male; 90% of people helping were male 
• No significant difference in race of helpers - 64% of first helpers white.
• Same race helping:
  When victim was white, 68% of first helpers were white; when victim was black, only 50% of first helpers were white - Tendency for same race helping
  Ill condition - no difference in race of helpers.
  Drunken condition - mainly members of the same race
• People left the critical area only 20% of the time - 34 people; more people left when the victim was drunk than ill.
• Most comments happened during drunk trials - especially when no one helped after 70 seconds.
  - May be due to discomfort of not helping, needing to justify inaction eg. "It's for men to help", "I'm not strong enough".

No diffusion of responsibility - In this study, helping was faster when there were more people.

• Victim and witnesses were face to face; unlike laboratory experiments. 

Conclusion

• Individuals who appear to be ill receive more help than a drunk person.
• Men are more likely to help than women - however, this could be a weakness of generalization, because in 1969, gender roles were different; women were still not seen as completely equal to men.
• Same-race helping is more likely, especially when victim is drunk.
• No strong relationship between number of bystanders and speed of helping - expected diffusion of responsibility not observed.
• The longer the emergency continues without help, the less impact a model has, and people are more likely to leave the immediate area.

Study results

Model of response in emergency situations

• Observing any emergency situation causes arousal in a bystander.
• Arousal: Unpleasant feeling (eg. sympathy, fear) that a bystander feels a need to reduce. Arousal can be higher if witness can relate to victim (eg. same race), the bigger the emergency, and the longer the situation continues.
• Arousal can be reduced by helping, going to get help, leaving the scene or concluding the victim doesn't deserve help.

Cost-reward matrix

• Determines response - People weigh up the costs and benefits before making a decision to help.
• Costs of helping - eg. possible physical harm
• Benefits of helping - eg. social approval 
• Benefits of not helping - eg. getting to work on time

Strengths

• Ecological validity - Could happen in real life.
• Behaviour is valid - Passengers did not know they were in an experiment, so behaviour is natural, although this is unethical, because passengers are deceived and there is no informed consent.

Weaknesses

• IV may not be affecting the DV - Situational variables are difficult to control in a field experiment, and it could be an EV affecting the DV - Eg. Positioning of people in carriage could not be controlled, so some people may not have noticed the incident, which could affect the level of helping.
• Unethical - Participants did not know they were in a study - no informed consent and deception.

Social psychology: Case study 2: Prison Simulation

Social psychology: Case study 2: Prison Simulation

Author: Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973)

Key term: Prison simulation

Background/ context: High recividism ( re-offending) rates mean that prison does not act as a deterrent for crime and neither do they rehabilitate most inmates. What makes prison so bad? Prisoners are stereotyped as bad people, but can the dispositional assumption be tested? If good, regular people are put in a prison environment would the situational approach turn them into bad people or would they leave remaining good?

Dispositional: Behaviour is caused due to individual personality or characteristics - their disposition. 

Situational: Cause of behaviour is caused by a feature of characteristic of the situation.

Aim/Hypothesis: Test whether the behaviour of non-prisoners (regular law-abiding citizens) in a simulated prison environment is more affected by their disposition than the situation. "The deplorable conditions of our penal system and it's dehumanising effects upon prisoners and guards is due to the 'nature' (disposition) of people who administrate and of the people who populate it, or both."

Zimbardo believed that prisoners had a high recividism rate and lack of rehabilitation due to disposition rather than situation.

Setting/Apparatus: 

• For arrest of participants selected as prisoners - Police, police car and police station
• Prison construction in basement of psychology department at Stanford University
  Consisted of 3 small cells (6 x 9 feet) made of converted laboratory rooms
  Solitary confinement was a small unlit broom cupboard (2 x 2 x 7 feet)
  Corridor used as yard
• No windows, no clocks, prisoners had no contact with outside world
• Cells had a mattress, sheet and pillow per person
• Intercom set up to record conversations

Uniforms: Promote feeling of anonymity in both groups and deindividuality

Guards:

• Plain khaki shirt and trousers, whistle and wooden baton - feeling of superiority/ military attitude
• Reflecting sunglasses - Impossible to make known eye contact with a prisoner - Loss of individuality

Prisoners: 

• Loose fitting muslin smock with ID number on front and back - loss of individuality
• No undergarmets - Make the prisoners assume more feminine postures - emasculation and humiliation (loss of masculinity)
• Ankle chain, cap made from a stocking and rubber sandals - Feeling of inferiority, ankle chain makes them feel oppressed and loss of individuality

Participants/Sampling technique: Advert put in newspaper for volunteers to take part in "Study on psychological effects of prison life". Paid $15 per day (unethical - cash payment and possible deception). 24 males selected from 75 who replied, but only 21 male college students from Stanford (weakness - lack of variety - all american male students - generalization) were actually involved in experiment since one backed out and two were standby. Psychometric tests conducted to ensure participants had good mental and physical health and had not committed any crime. Self-selecting because people volunteered.

Participants randomly allocated role of prisoner or guard. All signed a contract guarenteeing adequate diet, enough clothing, appropriate clothing and medical care.

Procedure

• Induction for guards: Guards met one day prior to induction for prisoners to meet the research team which consisted of the 'superintendent' of the prison (Zimbardo himself - researcher) and the warden (research assistant). (weakness - Researcher should not participate in experiment.) Guards were told they wanted to recreate a prison environment ethically. They were told their main task was to "maintain a reasonable amount of order within the prison necessary for its effective functioning". Given tasks such as shift logs, reporting any criminal incidents and administration of meals to prisoners.Involved in placing cots in the cells. They were only given minimal guidelines on how to 'act' in order to capture genuine reactions to the simulation.Prohibited to use physical punishment or aggression.

• Induction for prisoners - Arrest: 'Arrested' from their house without prior warning along with help from Palo Alto city police department (unethical - no informed consent).
  A real police officer charged the participants for suspicion of either armed robbery or arrest, told them their legal rights, handcuffed them, searched them and took them to the police station. At the police station they were fingerprinted, had a file prepared and kept in a detention cell. The police acted as though they were dealing with a real criminal and did not answer any questions about the study.
  Each prisoner was then taken to the prison simulation where they were stripped, deloused (sprayed for lice) and made to stand alone naked - humiliate and make them feel subservient (inferior.)Given their uniform and ID number and had their picture taken.

• Prison life: Guards read the rules of the prison (devised by guards with the warden) and prisoners were told to memorize the rules.
  -Prisoners would only be referred by their uniform ID number.
  -Prisoners given 3 basic meals
  -Prisoners were allowed 3 supervised toilet visits
  -Prisoners given two hours for privileges eg. writing or reading
  -Work assignments given to prisoners so they could earn their $15 a day
  -Prisoners were lined up 3 times a day for a count - checking all prisoners were present, and they memorized their ID numbers and prison rules
  -Two visiting periods were scheduled per week (experimented lasted only 6 days)

Results

• Both sets of participants became more and more negative.
• Total of 5 prisoners had to be released because of extreme emotional depression; symptoms were seen on day 2 for 4 of the prisoners.
• 5th prisoner had to be released because he developed a psychometric rash (rash from stress)
• Experimented was terminated after 6 days because guards were becoming worse in their treatment of prisoners
• Prisoners rebelled on the 2nd day by removing their caps, tearing off their ID numbers and barricading themselves in their cells. The guards retaliated by forcing prisoners out of their cells, stripping them naked and locking some of them in solitary confinement.
• Recordings of private conversations of prisoners showed 90% of their conversations centered around prison life.
• Prisoners became more submissive while guards got more cruel. 
• Mundane realism - Participants truly believed they were stuck in the prison
• Guards started using psychological tactics to regulate prison - solitary confinement as punishment, punishment for all prisoners for the mistake of one, and privilege cells for prisoners who behaved well. This dissolved prisoner cohesion - Prisoners distrusted each other and stopped working as a team. 
• Guards became increasingly aggressive with their freedom to control - one guard locked a prisoner in solitary confinement (which was against the rules) and turned the prisoners rights into privileges.
• Prisoner #8612 left and was replaced with a replacement who went on a hunger strike to protest the treatment of inmates, but was seen as a threat by other inmates instead of trying to help.

• Pathology of power: 
  
  • Guards became increasingly aggressive with their freedom to control - one guard locked a prisoner in solitary confinement (which was against the rules) and turned the prisoners rights into privileges.
  • Aggression appeared to get stronger at the beginning when prisoners showed defiance.
  • The most hostile guards became the leader - one guard was so harsh he was nicknamed "John Wayne".
  • Guards started coming in when they were not on shift because they were so involved and enjoyed their extreme power. 
  • Some dispositional effects: Guards were either tough but fair and followed rules, never punished the prisoners and helped them, or extremely hostile and caused degradation and humiliation whenever possible.

  
  
• Pathological prisoner syndrome:
  
  • Mental state of prisoners went down rapidly
  • When their rebellion failed, they tried using subtle methods like setting up a grievance committee. When all efforts of rebellion failed they just accepted their fate and turned to self-interest at the expense of group behaviour.
  • Destroyed, isolated and obedient
  • Elements of pathological prisoner syndrome were seen:
  • Loss of personal identity: Prisoners felt deindividuated, referred to each other by ID number instead of name and rarely spoke about outside life.
  • Arbitrary control: Increased difficulty in coping with increasing stronger control and unpredictable unfairness by guards, the prisoners just accepted their fate and went along with everything - learned helplessness.
  • Dependency and emasculation: Prisoners had to depend on guards for everything from toilet breaks to cleaning their teeth (they were handcuffed and blindfolded), These became privileges and required permission. Smocks resembled dresses and without underwear the prisoners had to sit like girls. Guards taunted prisoners and called them 'sissies' or 'girls', emasculating the prisoners. 

  
  

Conclusion: Situation has a bigger effect on behaviour than disposition. People adapt what they think they should do in a situation instead of acting based on their individual thinking. Bad people do not make bad places but instead it is the other way round.

Strengths:

• Validity due to high degree of control - Laboratory experiment - 'Healthy, normal citizens' to exclude EV of disposition, guards and prisoners roles randomly assigned.
• Realistic setting: Participants began to believe they were really in an prison environment - arrest of prisoners, prison procedure, uniforms, prison environment - could show the experiment has some ecological validity
• Qualitative data - Participants conversations and behaviour - provides rich, in-depth data
• Quantitative data - Videos, counted accounts of a particular behaviour seen in participants - provides more objective data

Weaknesses:

• Participants were aware they were in an experiment - could have affected their behaviour making the experiment invalid although the situation was said to have felt 'real'.
• Participants were paid $15 a day - which may have affected the participants behaviour so they receive their pay
• Only male subjects - generalization - invalid
• Difficult to replicate - unreliable
• Researcher bias - Zimbardo himself participated in the experiment (superintendent)

Ethics

• Prisoners suffered mental abuse, harassment and having to earn basic rights (eg. toilet visits) for 5 days which could have caused psychological damage.
• Right to withdraw - Participants may not have known they could withdraw since one prisoner spread a rumor they could not leave and Zimbardo did not tell them the rumor was false
• Deception - Participants allocated the role of prisoner were not told they would be arrested as induction

Social Psychology: Case study 1: Behavioural study of obedience

Social Psychology: Case study 1: Behavioural study of obedience

Author: Milgram (1963)

Key term: Obedience

Background/Context: Milgram believed that the holocaust had such a high mortality rate because "the Germans were different" (GADH) from the rest of society. He believed that extreme obedience to authority to the point of mass murder was a one-off, and he expected that in USA in the 1960s no one would obey if he created an extreme situation. 

Destructive behaviour: Orders from authority to cause harm to another person.

Aim/Hypothesis: To test the hypothesis that obeying the orders to murder was a 'one-off' thing and would not happen again. Milgram wanted to show that the germans had a basic character defect and were ready to obey obedience without question regardless of the orders demanded by the authoritive figure, which made Hitler able to commit the genocide of millions of jews. He believed that USA citizens in the 1960s would not obey the command to inflict critical pain onto another person - in this study, that US citizens would not give a harmful electric shock participants would give to a helpless man when ordered to by a scientist in a laboratory. 

40 psychologists predicted that less than 1% would administer the highest voltage. 

Method: Laboratory experiment - observation with questionnaire and interview at the end 

Design: There is no design because the experiment is a 'controlled observation' since there are no different conditions of the IV  - everyone did the same experiment

Participants/ Sampling technique: Advert placed in newspaper looking for volunteers for a study on "learning and memory". Participants would be paid $4 plus $0.50 for travel, though they were never told that payment was conditional on completing the study. (unethical - cash reward and deception). 40 males aged 20-50 of a variety of badckgrounds were selected. The sample was self-selected because people volunteered.

Experimenters: 

• Experimenter: 31 year old biology teacher in a grey lab coat. 
• Mr. Wallace: 47 year old actor pretending to be 'learner' in participant pair. 

Stooge: Someone pretending to be a participant but is actually working in the experiment/ for the researcher. 

Controls:

• Procedure was the same for all participants
• Outfit worn by experimenter (grey lab coat)
• Mistakes made by Mr. Wallace as well as his reaction to the shocks were the same for all participants (pounding on wall at 300V)
• Prods:
  "Please continue."
  "The experimenter requires you to continue."
  "It is absolutely essential that you continue"
  "You have no other choice, you must go on"

Procedure:

1. When each participant arrived, he was introduced to "Mr. Wallace", who they believed to be another participant. The two men were told they were doing an experiment to investigate the effect of punishment on learning. (Unethical - Deception)
2. They were told that one of them would play the role of teacher or learner, and pulled slips of paper from a hat to choose which role they would play, but this was set up so Mr. Wallace would always be the learner.
3. Taken to another room where the learner Mr. Wallace was strapped to a chair and had electrodes attached to him, and the participant was shown the electric shock generator, which rose in 15 volt intervals, from 15V to 450V Participants were told the shocks could be extremely painful but not dangerous; they were both given 45V shocks to demonstrate.
4. The participant (in the role of teacher) was given word pairs to read out to test Mr. Wallace (learner/ stooge) on his recognition of which word pairs went together by pressing a button so it was displayed in teaching room. Every time Mr. Wallace got it right the next pair was presented, but each time Mr. Wallace made a mistake (which was delibrate) the experimenter (also a stooge, so mistakes were planned) ordered the participant to give a shock. The shocks were to increase by 15V for each mistake. No actual shocks were given to Mr. Wallace but the participant did not know this as there was a wall between the teacher and learner.
5. Up to 300V Mr. Wallace did not signal any response to the shocks. However, at 300V and 315V he pounded on the wall and asked to be let out. Afterwards he was silent and did not respond to anymore questions, which could suggest he was hurt, unconscious or dead.
6. When participants (teachers) turned to the experimenter for guidance, they were told to treat his silence as an incorrect response and continue to give the shocks. When the participants protested, the experimenter gave a series of  the verbal prods to encourage them to continue.
7. Participants were considered to have finished the experiment when they refused to give anymore shocks or reached the maximum at 450V. They were then interviewed and asked to rate the on a scale of 1-14 how painful the shocks were for Mr. Wallace. The participants were then debriefed and told the shocks were not real and Mr. Wallace was just an actor and was unharmed, and the real purpose of this study was to test obedience to authority. 

Results

• All participants administered up to 300V.
• 26 participants went up to the maximum 450V (65% of participants)
• 5 refused to go beyond 300V, 4 beyond 315V, 2 beyond 330V and 1 each at 345V, 360V and 375V,
• 14 participants refused
• Most participants showed signs of stress from their body language; sweating, lip biting, stuttering.
• 14 participant laughed nervously
• One had a seizure and the procedure was stopped.
• Most participants protested, although the verbal prods by the experimenter was usually enough to make them continue administering shocks. (Diffusion of responsibility - responsibility supposedly in experimenter's hands)
• Participants rated how level of pain of the last shocks given to Mr. Waller to be 13.42 on a 1-14 scale 

Conclusion

1. People are much more obedient to destructive obedience than we think - majority of people will obey destructive orders
2. However they find obeying these orders highly distressing, though they obey despite their emotional responses. The situation triggers conflict between two ingrained tendences: to obey authority and not to harm people.

Strengths

• Laboratory experiment - High levels of control, can be replicated to test for reliability - Controls: Drawing of lots, timing of scripted responses, 15V progression - allows retest for reliability
• Laboratory experiment - High level of control - IV directly affects DV -
  Controls: Test shock, receiving prods from Mr. Waller at the same time for everyone, same scripted responses - Confidence that the situation of the experiment was the cause of the obedience levels.

Weaknesses

• Laboratory experiment - Artificial scenario - Lack of mundane realism - People are not normally asked to give electric shocks as negative reinforcement.
• Laboratory experiment - Artificial setting - Lack of ecological validity - People do not find themselves in a laboratory in front of a shock generator (although the experiment was repeated in different environments (eg. rundown office block) and with different procedures (eg. experimenter not physically in the room) therefore it could be said that there is some ecological validity but not in this single experiment.)
• Participants were paid $4.00, which may have affected their behaviour as this would have made participants less likely to withdraw due to pay received.
• Generalized - Participants were all male - cannot represent whole population

Ethics

• Deception
  - Participants volunteered for a 'learning and memory' study and were not told beforehand about the experiment. 
  -Participants (teachers) thought they were giving real electric shocks
• Debriefing 
  -Participants were debriefed at the end of experiment so they know they did not really harm anyone, and Milgram had a follow up with the participants 6 months after the experiment to see if they were having any psychological issues from the experiment
• Right to withdraw 
  - Prods given by experimenter although participant protests may have made it more difficult to withdraw because the participants were unclear about whether they had a right to withdraw 
• Psychological damage
  -Participants were caused extreme stress and anxiety as well as tricked