ScholarGate
Assistente

Comparar métodos

Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.

Milgram Obedience Paradigm×Confederate Paradigm×Cover Story Deception×
ÁreaPsicologia socialPsicologia socialPsicologia social
FamíliaProcess / pipelineProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Ano de origem196319561959
Autor originalStanley MilgramClassic social psychology (Asch, Milgram, Latane and others)Classic experimental social psychology
TipoExperimental paradigm for obedience to authorityMethodological design using trained accomplicesMethodological design controlling participant expectations
Fonte seminalMilgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. DOI ↗Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. DOI ↗Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210. DOI ↗
Outros nomesObedience to Authority Experiment, Milgram Shock Experiment, Destructive Obedience ParadigmExperimental Accomplice Method, Stooge Paradigm, Trained Confederate DesignDeception Design, Cover Story Method, Experimental Deception
Relacionados333
ResumoThe Milgram obedience paradigm, devised by Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s, measures the extent to which ordinary people will obey an authority figure's commands to harm another person. A naive participant is assigned the role of teacher and instructed by an experimenter to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner (a confederate) for errors on a memory task, with a switchboard labeled up to 450 volts and ominous warnings. No real shocks are delivered, but the participant believes they are, and the learner's scripted protests escalate to screams, then silence. When participants hesitate, the experimenter issues standardized prods to continue. Milgram found that a majority of participants obeyed to the maximum voltage despite visible distress, a result that overturned assumptions about individual conscience and became one of the most influential and controversial demonstrations in the history of psychology.The confederate paradigm is a foundational methodological design in social psychology in which trained accomplices -- people who appear to be ordinary participants or bystanders but are actually part of the research team -- enact scripted behavior to create controlled social situations. By standardizing what confederates do, researchers can manipulate the social environment with precision while keeping the naive participant convinced the situation is real. Confederates have been the linchpin of many landmark studies: the unanimous wrong majority in Asch's conformity work, the passive bystanders in Latane and Darley's helping experiments, the learner in Milgram's obedience studies, and partners in countless interaction studies. The paradigm allows experimental control over otherwise uncontrollable social stimuli, making it possible to draw causal conclusions about how others' behavior shapes our own.Cover story and deception design is the methodological practice of concealing a study's true purpose behind a plausible false rationale so that participants behave spontaneously rather than in line with what they think the experimenter wants. Because people who guess a study's hypothesis may consciously or unconsciously alter their behavior -- the problem of demand characteristics -- social psychologists often present a cover story that misdirects attention, embed the real dependent measure within an apparently unrelated task, and, when necessary, use additional deceptions such as confederates or false feedback. This approach made possible many of the field's classic findings on conformity, obedience, helping, and dissonance, where awareness of the true question would have destroyed the phenomenon. Deception carries serious ethical obligations, requiring justification, minimization of harm, suspicion probing, and thorough debriefing, which contemporary practice and ethics codes strictly govern.
ScholarGateConjunto de dados
  1. v1
  2. 1 Fontes
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Fontes
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Fontes
  3. PUBLISHED

Ir para a pesquisa Baixar slides

ScholarGateComparar métodos: Milgram Obedience Paradigm · Confederate Paradigm · Cover Story Deception. Recuperado em 2026-06-25 de https://scholargate.app/pt/compare