Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986)

BackgroundMeeus and Raaijmakers were critical of Milgram’s research. They thought parts of it were ambiguous – 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!Thought participants may not have actually believed they were doing any harm to other person.

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

In the second part of the study…

They wanted to find out if their two variations would reduce obedience as Milgram’s variations did.

- The experimenter absent variation- The two disobedient peers

variation

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 BUT - Sample included both men and women

Participants believed that the Psychology department had been commissioned to select candidates for a job

Each applicant was to take a test, which would be administered by the participants

The participants were given the role of ‘interviewer’ and ordered to harass a ‘job applicant’ (actually a confederate) to make him nervous while sitting the test to determine if he would get the job.

39 participants

15 participants in the control group

24 participants in the experimental group

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

The job applicant (confederate of the experimenter)

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 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

Remarks Participants were told to make a

series of 15 increasingly distressing remarks to the interviewees

Ranged from “your answer to question 9 is wrong” (the mildest)

to “according to the test it would be better for you to apply for lower functions – this job is too difficult for you” (the harshest)

 

Your answer to question 9 was wrong

This job is too difficult for you. You

are only suited for

lower functions

My answer was not wrong

was it?

I want to leave. I do not want to carry on with this interview

Control Group Were given instructions to make

remarks but were not told they would need to make all 15

Could choose when to make the negative statements

Could stop making them at any time during the test

Applicant - Actor The stooges showed signs of

increasing distress throughout the interview

Two-thirds of the way through the test the ‘interviewee’ accused the researchers of giving false information and withdrew his consent to continue

Participants were told to ignore outbursts and continue with remarks

Experimenter Prods Remember Milgram’s! Experimenter sat in on interview If the participants refused, they were

given a series of four prods similar to those in the Milgram experiment

A participant who made all the stress remarks was seen as obedient and those who refused to make all the stress remarks disobedient

To sum up….. The applicant was not real! He was

an actor! 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!

What did they find???

Do you think more or less people obeyed in this study compared to

Milgram’s???

RESULTS 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 92% of participants were

fully obedient and made all 15 harassing remarks.

In control condition – NO participants made all 15 remarks

They also did variations on the study

and they found similar results………….

When the experimenter left the room obedience dropped to 23% in Milgram’s study and 36% In Meeus’With disobedient peers (two present who refused to say remarks) obedience dropped to 10% in Milgram’s study and 16% In Meeus’

CONCLUSION… People in an everyday situation like a

job interview will generally obey orders to abuse a stranger psychologically

Rates of obedience were higher than in the Milgram study, as might be expected, as people believed they were upsetting rather than physically hurting someone

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!