Psychological Experiments: an Analysis of Milgram's Study of Obedience

Psychology can be define as the, ‘the scientific study of experience and behaviour’ (Parsons, 2012). Approaches can be defined as, ‘different schools of thought’ (Parsons, 2012). Each of the different approaches has their own explanation for why individuals do what they do. A methodology is a system of methods which is used in an area of study.

There are a number of human experiments conducted in psychology including Milgram with his study of obedience, Asch and the study of normative social influence/conformity, Bandura and the Bobo doll experiment and also Piaget and the experiments focused on conservation and also the three mountain task. I will focus on one of these experiments which will be Milgram’s study of obedience.

Milgram (1963) had conducted a laboratory experiment in order to test factors that were thought to affect obedience. Individuals had volunteered to take part in this study and they thought it was a study on learning and memory (Parsons, 2012). When the participants arrived they were introduced to a confederate, who acted like another participant but they were part of the set up. Both the confederate and the participant drew lots to see who would act as the teacher and who would act as the learner (Parsons, 2012). However, this was fixed so that the participant was the teacher. The participant saw the confederate being strapped into the chair and also connected to the shock generator, which was in the next room (Parsons, 2012). The switches ranged from 15 volts, to 450 volts. These shocks weren’t real, but the participant thought that they were. The participant taught the confederate/learner word pairs and when the confederate got them wrong; the participant would have to administer a shock which increased each time (Parsons, 2012). As the shocks increased the learner would scream and ask if they can be let out. After 330 volts the learner made no noise. The experimenter would tell the participant to continue if they hesitated (Parsons, 2012).

There are always evaluations to experiments, identifying strengths and limitations. A strength of human experiments is that they can be replicated, meaning that another researcher is able to the experiment again following the method to see if they find the same or similar results. When replicating the experiment, the researcher may also want to change certain variables. This in turn can be a strength. Independent variables can be manipulated and also extraneous variables can be controlled so that they don’t influence the relationship between other variables. This therefore means that it is possible to establish cause and effect (Parsons, 2012). However, if experiments are conducted in laboratories they don’t tell us much about real world settings and therefore it is difficult for the experiments to be generalised those settings in the real world. This means that the experiments would lack ecological validity (Parsons, 2012). Furthermore, demand characteristics may come into play. This means that the participants may be alerted to cues in the experiment and realise what’s going on, so their actions would not be what they think, but going along with the expectations of the researcher. If this does occur the results would be bias and also unreliable (Parsons,2012).

Furthermore there are a few well known experiments done with animals, however the two that I will be focusing on is Skinner’s experiments with rats and also Pavlov’s experiments with dogs.

Skinner conducted an experiment using rats and also a skinner box. He conditioned the rats to press a lever in the Skinner box in order to obtain a reward of food (Birch et al., 1997). The box contained the lever on one side and when the rate moved about the box, it would knock the lever accidentally. When this happened a pellet of food would be released into a contained beside the lever (McLeod, S. A., 2015). After being into the box a number of times, the rats then learned to go over to the lever, due to the consequence of receiving food. This showed positive reinforcement, as the rat associated the lever with a pellet of food. However, Skinner increased the difficulty of this and introduced a light and an electrified floor. When the light flashed, the floor would send through an electric current and the rat would be shocked. In time the rat learned that if it moved off the floor it would not get shocked and so escape it. By using this Skinner shows negative reinforcement (McLeod, S. A., 2015).

This Russian physiologist began to investigate the salivary reflex in dogs. He discovered that when an unconditional stimulus (food) is joint with other stimuli such as a buzzer, the dog would then salivate due to an association being made (Birch et al., 1997). In the first step of the experiment the dog was offered food alone and in response the dog salivated. In the next step, Pavlov offered the dog food at the same time as when a buzzer (conditional stimulus) was sounded. After the dog had been presented with this a number of times, it began to salivate when the buzzer was sounded alone (Birch et al., 1997). This therefore shows that an association has been made between food and the sounding of the buzzer and also the buzzer and salivation.

There is a high degree of variable control within these experiments also, meaning that there is a less likely chance of extraneous various influencing any relationship between other variables. It will also make it easier to draw conclusions and identify cause and effect. Experiments with animals can also be replicated by other researchers, meaning that by following the method they can carry this out a number of times after the first experiment. Another strength of experiments with animals is that they won’t show demand characteristics, as they do not have a desire to please, therefore if the research does observe any chances they are seen as being more valid. A limitation to this experiment however, is that the results cannot be a generalised to humans as they are seen as being too different from various species (Parsons, 2012). Anthropomorphism can occur as animals are unable to tell the researcher how the experiment has affected them and so human motivation will be ascribed to non-human behaviour (Psychology flipped, 2015).

Case studies are also used in psychology and there are a number of case studies which are well-known. One of these well-known studies is one by Freud which I will be focusing on.

Freud often used case studies and Little Hans was one of these. Little Hans was a 5-year-old boy who had a phobia of horses. The information about Little Hans which Freud obtained came from Little Hans’ father, who provided Freud with weekly reports. It was reported that since Little Hans’ was aged 3 he had an interest in his penis, and when Little Hans turned the age of 5, his mother threatened him that she was going to cut it off if he didn’t stop playing with it. Around the same time, Little Hans’ had developed a fear that a white horse was going to bite him and it was reported by his father that the fear was related to the horse’s large penis (Jarvis, M. 2000). Due to the development of Little Hans’ phobia, he started to get into bed with his parents in the morning. Hans’ phobia got worse until eventually he feared going out of the house in case he encountered a horse (Jarvis, M. 2000). However, his condition improved and his fear was more generalise to horses with black harnesses over their noses. His father saw this as an interpretation referencing his moustache (Jarvis, M. 2000). The end of the phobia came when Hans had two fantasies. The first was when Hans had a number of imaginary children and when he was asked who the mother was he replied with, ‘why mummy, and you’re their Granddaddy’. The second fantasy was when Hans imagined that a plumber had fitted him with a bigger penis (Jarvis, M. 2000). Freud interpreted that Hans had reached the phallic stage and was showing evidence of the Oedipus complex (Parsons, 2012).

Case studies provide the research with a large amount of qualitative information meaning that the researchers get to study rare phenomena in vast detail. Case studies are often unique cases and so they may challenge existing ideas and theories, while suggesting ideas for future research. There are limitations however to case studies. It is more difficult to establish causal relationships due to the fact that the researcher has very little to no control over the variables present. Furthermore, due to only using a single case makes generalisation of the results very difficult. Case studies may also be seen as having ethical problems. This is because if the subject has a disorder, it may prove difficult to obtain informed consent.

In conclusion, every study is assessed for its strengths and also limitations in order to see what is good about it. If another researcher was to come along, they may be able to manipulate certain aspects of the experiment in attempt to change some of the negatives.