1 / 16

Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986)

Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986). Background. Meeus and Raaijmakers were critical of Milgram’s research. They thought parts of it were ambiguous – like for example, the participants were told the shocks were not dangerous and yet the shock generator said Danger severe shock XXX

franz
Download Presentation

Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986)

  2. Background Meeus and Raaijmakers were critical of Milgram’s research. They thought parts of it were ambiguous – like for example, the participants were told the shocks were not dangerous and yet the shock generator said Danger severe shock XXX They also thought that giving shocks was an old fashioned way of punishing people!

  3. Their aims…. • Were to look at obedience in a more up to date way i.e. in more realistic circumstances • They thought psychological violence was more realistic than physical violence • They wanted their participants to believe they were doing definite harm to the victim

  4. In the second part of the study • They wanted to find out if their two variations would reduce obedience as Milgram’s variations did. They did the experimeter absent variation and the 2 disobedient peers variation

  5. Their study was very similar to Milgrams • Took place in a modern university in Holland • Experimenter: about 30 years, friendly but stern • Sample • Original experiment: 39 participants aged between 18 and 55 • Education: at least high school education • Answered a newspaper advertisement • Participants were paid $13 • Sample included both men and women

  6. 39 participants 24 participants in the experimental group 15 participants in the control group

  7. You will be the interviewer and your role will be to harass the job applicant to make him nervous while he is sitting a test to determine whether he gets the job We are researching the relationship between psychological stress and test achievement

  8. You will have to answer 32 multiple-choice questions which will be read out to you in four sets Poor performance on the test will affect your job prospects The job applicant (confederate of the experimenter)

  9. The psychological stress will be measured using these electrodes and displayed on this panel The readings start at 15 which is normal and go up to 65 which indicates intense stress

  10. This job is too difficult for you. You are only suited for lower functions Your answer to question 9 was wrong I want to leave. I do not want to carry on with this interview My answer was not wrong was it?

  11. Results (all make believe)

  12. To sum up….. • The applicant was not real! • He was not really stressed! • The machine was not real – the applicant did not really get stressed and make mistakes – it was all a cunning plan to see how obedient the participant was!

  13. So what did they find? • The Dutch participants 20 years later were MORE obedient than Milgram’s were! • Milgram found 65% of participants were obedient up to 450 volts. • Meeus found 91.7% of participants were fully obedient and made all 15 harassing remarks.

  14. They also did variations on the study and they found similar results…………. • When the experimenter left the room obedience dropped to 22.5% in Milgram’s study and 36.4% In Meeus’ • With disobedient peers obedience dropped to 10% in Milgram’s study and 15.8% In Meeus’

  15. The results were very similar! • Conclusion – Meeus and Raaijmaker’s provide evidence for agency theory! • When the experimenter left the room the participants had to take responsibility for their actions and obedience dropped. • When the experimenter was present the participants acted as their agent and most felt it was the experimenter's responsibility not theirs!

More Related