AP Psych - S1 Final Exam --- AAQ: Milgram

Using the source provided, respond to the following questions.

A. Identify the research method used in the study.

B. State the operational definition of obedience.

C. Describe what the standard deviation of 15.67 indicates for the ages of the participants.

D. Identify one ethical guideline described in the study. Describe one way the researchers in the study applied this ethical guideline.

E. Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.

F. Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes that modeled refusal plays a role in obedience.

Introduction

In the 1950s and 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, led a series of studies that tested whether people would obey the commands of a researcher in a lab. The study presented is a replication of one of Milgram's original studies.

Participants

Individuals who responded to advertisements and flyers went through a series of screening procedures to eliminate people who had taken more than two psychology courses in college; been diagnosed with, or had therapy for, a psychological disorder; abused alcohol or drugs; had medical conditions affected by stress; or experienced severe trauma. The final sample had 29 men and 41 women. The participants ranged in age from 20 to 81 (mean age = 42.9 years, standard deviation = 15.67, median age = 41). Participant education and race/ethnicity demographics are presented in the table - ******See Image 1 below for table ********

A committee of professionals reviewed the study to ensure the appropriateness of the study before researchers began.

Method

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the "base" condition and the "modeled refusal" condition. The participants signed consent forms saying they could end their participation at any time and keep the $50 they were paid to participate.

In the base condition, the participant was paired with a "learner," who was a research confederate. The participant read 25 different word-pairs (e.g., strong-arm) that the "learner" had to recall. If the "learner" gave an incorrect answer, the participant administered an electric shock using a "shock generator" that had switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts in 15-volt increments. The shock was fake, but the participant did not know this. The participant moved up one switch on the shock generator for each incorrect answer.

While the participants watched, the researcher strapped the "learners" into a chair with electrodes. The participant then went to another room for the remainder of the study. The "learners" gave correct and incorrect responses according to a predetermined schedule. After participants pressed the 75-volt switch, they heard a small grunt from the "learner." The grunts got louder after each successive shock. When a participant pressed the 150-volt switch, the “learner” yelled, “Ugh. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. I refuse to go on. Let me out.”

If the participant expressed reluctance or hesitation at any time, the researcher gave one of four directions, in this order: "Please continue"; "The research requires that you continue"; "It is absolutely essential that you continue"; and "You have no other choice, you must continue." The researcher assessed whether the participants continued to administer shocks after receiving each direction. The base condition ended when the participant refused to continue or agreed to continue at the shock level just past 150 volts.

In the modeled refusal condition, the procedures were the same as the base condition except for an additional confederate who was paired with each participant. The men were paired with a White man in his 50s. Women were paired with a White woman in her late 20s. The researcher pretended to randomly choose the participant to be Teacher 2 and the additional confederate to be Teacher 1. Teacher 1 administered shocks to the "learner" according to the procedures as the participant watched. At the 90-volt shock level, Teacher 1 said to the researcher, "I don't know about this." The researcher responded with "Please continue." Teacher 1 paused and then said, "I don't think I can do this," and pushed their chair from the table. The researcher then asked Teacher 2 (the participant) to continue the test, picking up where Teacher 1 left off.

As with the base condition, if the participant (Teacher 2) expressed reluctance or hesitation, the researcher gave one of the four directions as described. The researcher assessed whether the participants continued to administer shocks after receiving each direction. The modeled refusal condition also ended when the participant refused to continue or agreed to continue at the shock level just past 150 volts.

When the study was over, the researcher explained that the "learner" was not receiving electric shocks. The "learner" entered the lab room at that point to assure the participant that they were fine.

Results and Discussion

******** See Image 2 and Image 3 below **

Burger, J.M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.

Identify the research method used in the study.

State the operational definition of obedience.

Describe the meaning of the standard deviation of 15.67 for the ages of the participants.

Identify at least one ethical guideline applied by the researchers. Describe one way the researchers in the study applied this ethical guideline.

Explain the extent to which the research findings may or may not be generalizable using specific and relevant evidence from the study.

Explain how at least one of the research findings supports or refutes that modeled refusal plays a role in obedience.