Obedience

Obedience

Obedience

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.

Situational explanation

Suggests that something about the environment (i.e., pressure) influences a person's behaviour/whether they obey

Milgram procedure

• Participants introduced to 'Mr Wallace' (the learner), experimenter then explained that the aim of the study was to see if punishment aided learning

• Participants sat at a table with a set of questions to read out, a shock-button and a voltage box which they could change frequency. Confederate/learner sat in another room, with a voicebox/microphone to simulate responses to the participant's questions and actions

• Participants had to read the questions to the learner, who would answer them - if the answer was incorrect, then the participant was required to shock them. Each question they got wrong, the voltage would increase - at certain increments the learner would respond in different ways (such as at 120 volts the learner said the shocks were beginning to hurt, and at 300 he banged on the wall, then he stop responding afterwards)

Milgram

Experiment on obedience that took place at Yale University.

• Volunteer sample was used, 40 participants (ranged from unskilled workers to graduate professionals, all male)

Milgram voltage range

Started at 15 volts, went up in 15 volt increments, all the way to 450 volts - all with decriptive increments ranging from "slight shock" to "danger severe shock" to "XXX"

Milgram results

100% of participants went to 300 volts, 65% of participants went to 450 volts

• Many of the participants showed signs of nervousness, especially when they administered the strongest shocks.

• Participants were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their nails into their flesh.

• Full blown seizures were observed for 3 participants and on one occasion a participant had such a severe seizure the experiment had to be stopped

Proximity

In Milgram's study, this to the observer affected how willing someone was to obey. In the original study the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms so the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In this variation, they were in the same room - the obedience rate then dropped from the baseline 65% to 40%

Location

In Milgram's study, this (where the individual is being influenced) affected how willing someone was to obey - e.g., the more credible it was (such as a University, which resulted in 65% obedience) caused individuals to conform more, and the less credible it was (such as run down offices, where obedience fell to 47.5%), the less likely they were to conform

Uniform

In Milgram's study, this affected how willing someone was to obey as looking like an agent of social control/a person of power causes people to feel more obliged to obey - in a variation of the experiment, the role of the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' and the obedience rate dropped to 20%

Orne and Holland

These people claimed that Milgram's experiment lacked experimental realism, as the participants would not have believed the shocks were real and would have questioned why the experimenter did not give the shocks himself

Perry

Listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that many of them expressed doubts about the authenticity of the shocks - which has implicaitons for the internal validity of Milgram's experiment > However, Milgram reported that 70% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine, and many showed signs of distress (which would not have happened if they didn't believe the shocks were real)

Ecological validity

Milgram's experiment may lack this because it was conducted in a laboratory setting (although Milgram argues it reflected authority relationships generally)

Temporal validity

Milgram's study may lack this as it was conducted in the early 1960s - relationships with/perceptions of authority figures have changed since then

Unethical

Milgram's study was undoubtedly this, as:

• There was a lack of informed consent as the sample was gathered on the basis that the experiment had a different purpose - consented to the conceptualised experiment, not the actual experiment

• The right to withdraw was also questionable as the participants were 'prodded' to continue the experiment even when requesting to leave

• There was a lack of protection of the participants as the participants believed they had actually harmed the 'learner' - caused anxiety, distress, guilt, etc and even led to seizures and physical harm

Autonomous state

Where individuals are seen as being completely in control of/responsible for their own actions

Agentic state

Where individuals feel as though they have an external force/person controlling their actions

Legitimacy of authority

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 a social hierarchy.

Authoritarian Personality

• Submission to/willigness to obey authority figures blindly

• Disregard for/hostility against groups/people they percieve as inferior/weaker

• Rigid opinions and beliefs, resistant to change, holding conventional views and traditional values

• Had a cognitive style where they made clear distinctions between categories of people and had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups

• Result of disciplinarian parenting

Dispositional explanation

Suggests that something in the personality or characteristics of the individuals that would make them particularly obedient to authority figures

Adorno

Person behind the Authoritarian Personality, used the F scale to research it (a psychometric test to measure the levels of a person's fascism)

Large scale

Adorno's Authoritarian personality cannot explain obedience of this scale, as it cannot explain why millions of Germany displayed racist and antisemetic views (as not all people can have the same authoritarian personality style). Also, many people have strict and critical parents but do not grow up to have authoritarian views

Methodological issues

(With the F scale) It was much easier to agree with the questions than disagree, and all of the questions were worded in the same direction so simply ticking the same box each time could lead to a high authoritarian score - the F scale may have just been measuring acquiescence (the tendency to agree with everything)