Meeus and Raaijmaker 1986 Background Meeus and Raaijmakers

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 They also thought that giving shocks was an old fashioned way of punishing people!

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. They did the experimeter absent variation and the 2 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 • Sample included both men and women

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

You will be the We are researching interviewer and your role thetorelationship will be harass the job between applicant to make him psychological nervous while hestress is sitting and testtoachievement a test determine whether he gets the job

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

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

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

Results (all make believe)

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!

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.

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’

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!