Obedience

Outline Milgram's 1963 baseline procedure

• A volunteer sample of 40 American males were recruited (they were naive to the true aim of the study)

• In the role of 'Teacher', each participant administered electric shocks (which were fake, although the participants did not know this) to the 'Learner' for every incorrect answer given to a memory test

• An experimenter provided 'prods' to encourage the participants to continue if they raised any objection to the procedure

• 65% of the participants went all the way to the (fatal) 450 volts

Outline Milgram's 1963 baseline procedure

• 100% of Ps delivered shocks to 300 volts

• 12.5% stopped at 300 volts

• 65% continued to 450 volts ('fatal')

Qualitative data (observations)

• Many Ps showed signs of extreme tensions

• Nail biting, sweating, stuttering etc

Outline the statistics of milligram's baseline procedure

• what qualitative data did he also gather

• 14 psychology students were asked to predict the outcomes of the study

• Estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 Volts

• The students underestimated how obedient people are

How were Milgram's findings unexpected

• German people are not 'different'

• This is because the American Ps in the study were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person

What conclusions can be drawn from Milgram's 1963 study

Research support

• Findings were replicated in a French doc (Beauvois et al 2012)

• Ps, on a fake game show, were paid to give fake electric shocks to to other Ps (who were actors) in front of a studio audience

• 80% delivered the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man

• Supports Milgrams original findings about obedience authority, and that they weren't due to special circumstances

Counterpoint to Low Internal Validity

• Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study similar to Milgram's

• Ps (all students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to an experimenter

• 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought were fatal shocks to the puppy

• Suggests the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real

What are the strengths of Milgram's 1963 Baseline test

Low Internal Validity

• Study may not have been testing what was intended to test

• Milgram reported 75% of Ps said they believed the shocks were genuine

• Gina Perry's (2013) research confirms that some Ps were 'play acting' when listening to tapes of the procedure. Only about 1/2 believed the shocks were real

• Suggests that Ps may have been responding to demand characteristics

Ethical Issues

• Ps in this study were deceived

• Ps thought the allocation of the roles was random but it was fixed

• They thought the shocks were real

What are the limitations of Milligram's 1963 baseline study

• Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases as proximity increases

• Destructive obedience is more easily achieved if the person/people being harmed are out of sight (if they can't be seen then this reduces moral strain)

• When the Teacher and the Learner were in the same room obedience (measured as the number of participants who went to 450 volts) dropped from 65% to 40%

• In another proximity variation, the Teacher had to force the Learner’s hand onto an electromagnetic shock plate

  This variation resulted in obedience dropping to 30%

Outline Milgram's research into Proximity as a situational variable

Outline Milgram's research into uniform as a situational variableMilgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases as the authority of the experimenter decreases

• In Milgram's original (1963) study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat, serving as uniform and a symbol of authority

• The variation of this procedure included the experimenter leaving the room and being replaced by a man in plain clothes

• Obedience dropped to 20% (going up to 450 Volts)

• Milgram concluded that a uniform - even when it is as sparse as a lab coat - confers authority on the wearer and thus results in higher levels of obedience

Outline Milgram's research into uniform as a situational variable

• Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases when the location of the study changes from high to low status

Original study was conducted at the prestigious Yale University

Variation:

• Milgram ran the study in a run-down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut

• Participants were told the experiment was being run by the Research Association of Bridgeport

• Obedience dropped to 47.5% (Ps who went to 450 Volts)

• Milgram concluded the less credible, low-status location resulted in a lower level of obedience

Outline Milgram's research into location as a situational variable

Research Support

• Other studies have demonstrated the effect of situational variables on obedience

• FIELD EXPERIMENT: Leonard Bickman (1974)

• People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one in a suit and tie

• This supports that a situation variable, uniform, has a powerful effect on obedience

Standardised Procedures

• Milgram stuck to the same standardised procedure in all of the variations he conducted which means that the results are easy to compare to check for reliability

What are the strengths of Milgram's research into Situational Variables that effect Obedience

• FIELD EXPERIMENT

• 3 confederates dressed in a jacket and tie, as a milkman and in a security guard uniform

• they would ask members of the public to carry out tasks like picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter

• People were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the confederate in a jacket and tie

• this shows how uniform has a powerful effect on obedience

Outline Leonard Bickman's 1974 experiment

Low internal validity

• Ps may have been aware that the procedure was faked

• Orne and Holland (1968) suggested in the baseline and especially the variations because of the extra manipulation of variables

• Even Milgram recognised that the situation was so contrived that it was very likely for the Ps to have worked out the truth

• It is unclear wether the results are actually genuine or if the Ps just 'play acted' (demand characteristics)

What are the Limitations of Milgram's research into Situational Variables that effect Obedience

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves acting for an authority figure

• This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure

Define Agentic State

A person that's free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility of their own actions

Define Autonomous state

The shift from 'autonomy' to 'agency'

• Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when someone perceives someone else as an authority figure

• The authority figure has a higher position in the social hierarchy

Outline Agentic shift

Aspects of the situation that allow someone to ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour, and reducing moral strain of the victims

• E.g placing blame on the victim by saying 'he was foolish to volunteer!'

Define binding Factors

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us

This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within the social hierarchy

Define Legitimacy of Authority

Legitimate authority can be manipulated for destructive purposes by ordering people to do things that are cruel and dangerous

Examples : Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot

Outline Destructive Authority

Research Support

• Milgram's own studies support this

• Most Ps rested shocks at some points and asked questions to the experimenter e.g 'Who is responsible if the learner is harmed' - 'I am' replied the experimenter. The teacher would continue with no further objections

• This shows that once they felt they were not responsible for their actions, they acted more easily as the experimenter's agent

What are the strengths of the explanation of Agentic State

A limited explanation

• Doesn't explain many research findings about obedience

• Rank and Jacobson's (1977) study, 16/18 disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient

• The doctor was an obvious authority figure, but the majority of the nurses remained autonomous, similar to some of Milgram's Ps

• This suggests the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience

What are the limitations of the explanation of Agentic State

Explains Cultural Differences

• Useful account for cultural differences in obedience

• Kilham and Mann (1974) found that 16% of women went up to 450 Volts in a Mstyle study

• David Mantell (1971) found that 85% of Germans went up to 85%

• This shows, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from others

• This reflects how different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

What are the strengths of Legitimacy as an explanation of obedience

Can't explain all (dis)obedience

• Can't explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted

• Includes nurses in the Rank and Jacobson study (nurses)

• This suggests some people may be more or less obedient than others

What are the weaknesses of Legitimacy as an explanation of obedience

• They will show extreme respect for authority

• such people view society as 'weaker' and believe we need strong leaders to enforce traditional values

• Also show contempt for those with an inferior social status, fuelled by their inflexible outlook of the world. Everything is either right or wrong

What did Adorno suggest about his concept of the Authoritarian personality (explanation for dispositional obedience)

• It forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting

  • features strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty and high standards and severe criticisms of perceived failure

• Adorno et al, argued that this creates resentment and hostility in a child, but they can't express this to their parents for fear of punishment

• The child will displace these feelings onto others who they perceive to be weaker, via scapegoating

• This is a psychodynamic explanation

What did Adoro suggest how the Authoritarian Personality could originate

A type of personality Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority

• Individuals are submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of those 'inferior' to them

Define the AP

• F’ on the scale denotes a rating of fascism/potential for facism

• 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn' - example statement

• fixed responses on the scale ranged from 'Disagree strongly' to 'Agree strongly'

• More than 2,000 middle-class white Americans completed the scale

  • note that the sample demographic did not represent all racial and ethnic groups in the USA at the time

Outline Adorno et al's F scale procedure

After analysing the results, Adorno concluded that people with an authoritarian personality exhibit the following traits

• They are more obedient than other people

• They respect social hierarchies and authority figures

• They are ‘black and white’ in their opinions and see the world in a rigid, inflexible way

• They are disdainful of anyone who shows ‘weakness’

• The findings showed that the high-obedience participants scored higher on the F-scale than the low-obedience participants

Outline the results of Adorno et al's F scale

Research support

• Milgram and Elms (1966) interviewed a small sample of people who participated in the original 1963 procedure, and who had been fully obedient

• They all completed the F scale, and all 20 scored significantly higher than the other 20 disobedient Ps

• Theses support Adorno et al's findings view that obedient people will show similar traits to those with AP

What are the strengths of dispositional explanations of obedience

Counterpoint to research support

• Researchers observed, when analysing data, that obedient Ps had a number of characteristics unusual for an AP

• E.g they didn't glorify their fathers, didn't receive harsh punishments

• This means the line between authoritarianism and obedience is complex

Limited explanation

• AP cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of the country's population

• E.g Pre war Germany: millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-semitic behaviour, despite them probably differing in personality in lots of ways and unlikely they all posted an AP

A questionnaire to obtain data isn't 100% valid

• People may be prone to social desirability bias, providing responses which show them in their 'best light' i.e. their ideal self

What are the limitations of dispositional explanations of obedience

• The majority of the German people likely identified with the anti-semitic Nazi state

• Scapegoated the Jews

• Social Identity theory approach

What was an alternative view to all of Pre-War Germany not possessing an AP