Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Psychology

PSY.SI2 Milgram's Baseline Study Into Obedience: Procedure and Findings

AQA 7182 · Calculators not allowed · about 60 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Show all your working.

Milgram used a sample of male participants recruited for his 1963 baseline obedience study. State the sampling method Milgram used to recruit participants and give one reason why he used that method.

(Total for Question 1 is 1 mark)

Describe the role of the confederate known as the 'learner' in Milgram's baseline study procedure, including what the learner did and how the participant was involved.

(Total for Question 2 is 1 mark)

Outline the physical set up of the shock generator used in Milgram's baseline study, including the maximum voltage shown to participants and how voltages were labelled on the apparatus.

(Total for Question 3 is 2 marks)

Milgram used four verbal prods to encourage participants to continue giving shocks when they hesitated. Outline two of these standard prods used by the experimenter in the baseline study.

(Total for Question 4 is 2 marks)

Give two quantitative findings from Milgram's 1963 baseline study about obedience, including the proportion who reached the maximum shock and any other numerical pattern reported.

(Total for Question 5 is 2 marks)

Milgram also recorded qualitative signs of stress in participants while they administered shocks. Identify two such qualitative signs Milgram reported and explain briefly why these observations matter for interpreting the study's findings.

(Total for Question 6 is 3 marks)

Identify two ethical criticisms commonly raised about Milgram's baseline study, and for each criticism briefly explain why it is a concern for participant welfare or research ethics.

(Total for Question 7 is 3 marks)

Explain briefly the issue of right to withdraw in Milgram's baseline study and how the experimenter's behaviour could affect a participant's ability to exercise that right.

(Total for Question 8 is 2 marks)

Outline the critique made by Orne and Holland regarding the ecological validity of Milgram's baseline study, and state why this critique matters for interpreting how the findings apply to real world obedience.

(Total for Question 9 is 2 marks)

A commanding officer in a military training exercise orders a new recruit to administer a painful but non harmful discomfort task to a fellow trainee as part of a discipline drill. The recruit follows the order despite feeling distressed. Explain, using your knowledge of Milgram's baseline research, why the recruit might obey in this workplace military scenario. Refer to the baseline study procedure or findings in your answer.

(Total for Question 10 is 6 marks)

Explain why Milgram used deception in his baseline procedure and evaluate briefly how the use of deception affects the validity and ethics of his findings. Give two linked points.

(Total for Question 11 is 4 marks)

Milgram's procedure is often praised for its control but criticised for other reasons. Explain one methodological strength of Milgram's baseline study and one methodological limitation, giving two developed points that refer to the study's procedure or findings.

(Total for Question 12 is 6 marks)

Discuss Milgram's research into obedience. In your answer you should outline the baseline study's procedure and findings and evaluate the research, including ethical and methodological issues. Use evidence where appropriate.

(Total for Question 13 is 16 marks)

Mark scheme · PSY.SI2 Milgram's Baseline Study Into Obedience: Procedure and Findings

Question 1

B1 volunteer sampling via newspaper adverts and mailouts, often called self selected or volunteer sampling oe
Answer: Volunteer sampling via newspaper adverts and direct approach to volunteers.

Question 2

B1 the learner was a confederate who pretended to receive electric shocks and gave pre scripted incorrect answers when tested by the participant, who acted as the 'teacher' oe
Answer: The learner was a confederate who feigned being shocked and produced scripted wrong answers while the real participant, as teacher, administered the shocks.

Question 3

M1 a shock generator with switches labelled from 15 volts up to 450 volts oe
A1 labels increased in 15 volt increments and the highest switches were marked with warnings such as DANGER or XXX oe
Answer: A shock generator displayed switches from 15 V to 450 V in 15 V steps, with the highest levels labelled with warnings such as DANGER or XXX.

Question 4

B1 "Please continue" or "Please go on" as a standard prod oe
B1 "The experiment requires that you continue" or "You must go on" as a standard prod oe
Answer: Examples of prods: "Please continue" and "The experiment requires that you continue."

Question 5

B1 65 percent of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts oe
B1 approximately one third of participants stopped before reaching the highest levels, showing a range of obedience levels oe
Answer: About 65% of participants went to 450 V; roughly one third stopped before the maximum, showing variation in obedience.

Question 6

M1 identifies a qualitative sign, e.g. sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter or seizures oe
A1 identifies a second qualitative sign oe
A1 explains that these signs indicate high tension and possible psychological harm, which matters for ethical evaluation and suggests obedience occurred under distress oe
Answer: Examples: sweating and nervous laughter, or trembling and a seizure. These signs show participants experienced high tension and possible harm, so obedience occurred under stress which matters for ethics and interpretation of the behaviour.

Question 7

M1 identifies deception as an ethical issue, because participants were misled about the true nature of the shocks and the role of the learner oe
A1 explains why deception is a concern, e.g. it prevents informed consent and may damage trust or cause distress when the truth is revealed oe
A1 identifies lack of protection from harm, e.g. participants showed extreme stress and one or more had seizures, meaning they were not adequately protected during the procedure oe
Answer: Two criticisms: deception, because participants were misled about shocks and the learner, preventing true informed consent; and lack of protection from harm, because many showed extreme stress or seizures, indicating they were not adequately protected.

Question 8

M1 states that participants may have felt unable to withdraw because the experimenter used prods telling them they must continue oe
A1 explains that scripted prods and the perceived authority of the experimenter reduced the practical freedom to leave, undermining the right to withdraw oe
Answer: Participants could feel unable to withdraw because the experimenter used prods such as "You must go on," and the experimenter's authority made it harder in practice to exercise the right to withdraw.

Question 9

M1 states that Orne and Holland argued participants may have suspected the shocks were fake, challenging the realism of the situation oe
A1 explains that if participants guessed the true nature of the study, their behaviour may not reflect genuine obedience in real life, reducing ecological validity oe
Answer: Orne and Holland argued participants might have guessed the shocks were fake, so their behaviour may not reflect genuine real world obedience, reducing ecological validity.

Question 10

M1 applies Milgram's finding that a majority of participants obeyed an authoritative figure and continued to the maximum shock (65%) oe
A1 links the military officer to the experimenter's authoritative role in Milgram's procedure, showing the recruit may feel duty bound to obey oe
M1 applies the idea that experimenter prods in Milgram's study encouraged continuation, analogous to orders and pressure in a military setting oe
A1 explains that the recruit may feel the order comes from a legitimate authority and that refusal could have social or career consequences, so they comply oe
M1 applies Milgram's observation of participants showing distress while obeying, to explain why the recruit may feel distressed yet still follow orders oe
A1 explains that obedience under distress was characteristic of Milgram's participants, so similar situational pressures in the military can produce obedience despite personal discomfort oe
Answer: Milgram found 65% obeyed an authoritative experimenter to the maximum, and his scripted prods encouraged continuation. In a military setting the officer plays a similar authoritative role and may give pressure or orders that seem legitimate, so the recruit may obey despite distress, paralleling Milgram's participants who showed tension yet continued.

Question 11

M1 explains that deception was used to create a believable situation so participants would believe they were administering real shocks and reveal genuine obedience behaviour oe
A1 evaluates that this increases internal validity because behaviour is more likely to be natural, but it raises ethical concerns because participants could not give fully informed consent oe
M1 explains that without deception the study would not replicate the conflict between authority and personal conscience that Milgram wished to observe oe
A1 evaluates that ethical costs include potential lasting distress and damage to trust in research, which may limit the acceptability and replication of such studies oe
Answer: Deception made the shock situation believable so obedience could be observed, boosting internal validity. However, it prevented informed consent and risked causing serious distress, so it is ethically problematic and complicates replication.

Question 12

M1 states a methodological strength, e.g. high experimental control over variables such as the scripted prods, the fixed shock increments, and standardised procedure oe
A1 explains that such control increases internal validity because differences in obedience are less likely to be due to procedural inconsistencies oe
M1 provides a second strength point, e.g. the use of quantitative measures such as the percentage reaching 450 V allows clear, replicable measurement of obedience levels oe
A1 explains that having a clear numerical outcome aids comparison across samples and later variations of the experiment oe
M1 states a methodological limitation, e.g. demand characteristics or participant suspicion about the authenticity of shocks may have affected behaviour, as argued by Orne and Holland oe
A1 explains that if participants guessed the shocks were fake or the setup staged, this would reduce ecological validity and mean the measured obedience may not reflect real world actions oe
Answer: Strengths: high experimental control with standardised prods and apparatus, improving internal validity, and a clear quantitative outcome (percentage to 450 V) that aids replication and comparison. Limitation: possible demand characteristics or suspicion about fake shocks could reduce ecological validity and mean behaviour may not mirror real world obedience.

Question 13

Level 4 (13-16): Knowledge of Milgram's baseline study is detailed and accurate. The discussion evaluates strengths and limitations coherently, using relevant evidence and reasoning. Ethical and methodological issues are explored in depth and linked to how they affect interpretation and generalisation. The answer is well structured and uses specialist terminology appropriately.
Level 3 (9-12): Knowledge of the baseline study is mostly accurate with some detail. There is a balanced evaluation with some development, and ethical and methodological points are considered. The answer applies evidence and is generally well organised.
Level 2 (5-8): Basic knowledge of Milgram's study is present but incomplete. Evaluation is limited or superficial, with some relevant points about ethics or methodology but little development. The answer may lack depth or full application of evidence.
Level 1 (1-4): Little relevant knowledge or evaluation. The answer is largely descriptive or fragmentary, with minimal understanding of ethical or methodological implications.
Level 0 (0): No creditable content.
Indicative content:
- AO1: Procedure: volunteers recruited by advert; rigged draw making participant the 'teacher' and confederate the 'learner'; learner strapped to chair; shock generator labelled 15 V to 450 V in 15 V increments with warnings at the top; participant instructed to test memory and give shocks for wrong answers; experimenter used a set of four prods when participant hesitated; shocks were fake but the participant believed them to be real.
- AO1: Findings: 65% of participants administered the highest 450 V; many participants showed signs of extreme tension such as sweating, trembling, nervous laughter and seizures; a significant minority refused to continue.
- AO3: Ethical evaluation: deception was used to create the situation but prevented informed consent; participants experienced significant stress and were not fully protected from harm; the right to withdraw was undermined by experimenter prods; debriefing and follow up were carried out but ethical standards today would not permit the baseline procedure without major changes.
- AO3: Methodological evaluation: high experimental control and a clear quantitative measure (percentage reaching 450 V) strengthen internal validity and replicability; however Orne and Holland's critique that participants may have been sceptical undermines ecological validity and questions whether behaviour reflected genuine real world obedience; sample was volunteer and all male, limiting generalisability.
- AO3: Application and implications: Milgram's findings show the power of situational pressures and perceived authority to produce obedience in ordinary people, with implications for understanding historical events and authority structures, but ethical and validity limitations constrain how directly the laboratory results can be applied to real world atrocities.
- AO3: Counterarguments and balance: supportive evidence from similar laboratory studies shows obedience can be high under authority pressure, but replication variations and cultural or temporal differences indicate obedience is not uniform; methodological strengths such as standardisation should be weighed against ethical costs and questions about realism.

Milgram's Baseline Study Into Obedience: Procedure and Findings - Worksheets, Questions and Revision