Obedience

Obedience

doing as you are told by, following the orders of, an authority figure

Social influence

how our opinions, beliefs and behaviours are influenced by

pressure of an individual or group.

Agency theory

Milgram stated that obedience is necessary for a stable society, so we are socialised from a very young age to obey. We learn to obey parents, teachers, police, and so we become agents of these authority figures.

This is because societies are built on hierarchies - there are those above us who we obey, and those below us who do not obey.

Argues that obedience can be explained by a shift in how we view ourselves and our behaviour. When in a social situation, we can exist in two different states

Autonomous state

The person believes that they have control over their own actions and that they are responsible for their behaviour (less likely to obey).

Agentic state

The person believes that they are acting on behalf of another person (an authority figure) and that responsibility for their actions is attributed to the authority figure (more likely to obey).

Agentic shift

A shift between the autonomous state people are usually in, to an agentic state where a person believes they are acting as someone else. Explains why normal people can become involved in terrible atrocities, such as the Holocaust. A person in the agentic state no longer views themselves as responsible for their own actions, but instead shifts the responsibility to the authority figure.

Requirement of agency theory

• Must believe authority figure is competent enough to make decisions + give out orders. People are more likely to obey a person wearing a uniform than the same person wearing plain clothes.

• Should believe the authority figure will take responsibility for their actions. Milgram - people more likely to obey someone wearing a grey lab coat - it added to their legitimacy.

Moral strain

Caused when an order conflicts with our morals, can be a feeling of distress because we want to follow authority figure but also our conscience. People use defense mechanisms (mainly denial) to reduce this, that’s why we experience an agentic shift.

Agentic state is beneficial for society

Milgram argues Agency theory is socialised from a young age because it benefits society. As society follows a hierarchy, it runs more smoothly when people obey.

Evaluation of the agency theory - Positive (research to support)

• Milgram’s participants showed signs of moral strain (laughing nervously), some continued after being reassured the researcher would accept responsibility.

Evaluation of the agency theory - Positive (Real life application)

• Explains real life situations, e.g: the holocaust. Arguably, people wouldn’t carry out the actions of the Holocaust in an autonomous state, by viewing themselves as acting on another person’s orders they rid themselves of responsibility allowing them to carry out immoral actions.

Evaluation of the agency theory - Negative (Real life application)

Doesn’t explain why we still obey authority figures when they aren’t present, e.g: we follow the law without police present.

Evaluation of the agency theory - Negative (Real life application)

Promotes the idea that we are not responsible for our actions when following orders. People may claim to be in an agentic shift when they are not. After the holocaust, nazi’s claimed they were following orders, it is impossible to know if they were in an agentic shift.

Social power theory

• The ability of a person to create conformity or obedience even when those being influenced resist changes.

• 6 different power bases

Reward power

The ability to give things that others want, eg. increase salary, verbal praise.

Coercive power

The ability to dispense punishments, e.g. being fired, bullied or sent to your room.

Legitimate power

Authority that comes from a belief on the part of those being influenced that the person has a legitimate right to demand obedience, eg. a president, a policeman.

Referent power

Influence based on charisma, charm and attraction to, or respect for the power-holder. The subordinates identify with the authority figure, eg. social media influencers.

Expert power

Power that comes from others’ beliefs that the power-holder possesses superior skills and abilities, eg. they are experts in a subject you want to know more about.

Informational

This is where those in authority carefully explain to others why the changed behaviour is preferable which leads to acceptance of the change.

Reward power disadvantage

Leader may not have as much control over the rewards as they would like, so may lose their power.

Coercive power disadvantage

Causes upset and can be abusive.

Legitimate power disadvantage

People are influenced by your position, not by you, so if you lose your position, you lose your power.

Referent power disadvantage

You don't always have to do anything to hold this power, so you may abuse it, eg. someone who is popular, but not honest.

Informational power disadvantage

Mmay not work for those who feel they know more.

Social power theory evaluation - positive 1

• Helpful for leaders to understand as they can become more effective.

• Can help others to spot a good or bad leader.

Social power theory evaluation - positive 2

• Can be used to explain behaviour in society, e.g: holocaust soldiers had legitimate power so were obeyed.

Social power theory evaluation - negative - LoC

• Ignores individual differences of personality, individuals with an internal locus of control may be more likely to dissent as they take personal responsibility for their actions regardless of perceived power.

Social power theory evaluation - negative 2

• Ignores that an authority figure is less powerful when there are more people.

• Power is ‘diffused’ between everyone.

Social control

• Considers how psychological knowledge can be used to manage or control others’ behaviour.

• Knowledge of SPT can be used to manage individuals.

• Poses ethical considerations about the use of power in society.

Milgram - Aim

• Investigate whether participants would obey an authority figure even if it meant breaking their moral code and harming another person.

Milgram - Sample

• Volunteer sample (newspaper advert)

• 40 Males

• From US

• Paid $4.50

• False aim (effects of punishment on learning)

Milgram - Procedure

• Man in grey labcoat introduced as researcher

• Confederate introduced as participant

• Participants ‘drew lots’ to decide role, both sheets said teacher.

• Watched confederate be strapped to a chair and wired up.

• Participant given a real 40V shock.

• Went to a room with a shock generator, increasing by 15V.

• Stated a word and gave four options to learner, had to match word to one he’d been told earlier.

• For each wrong answer shock increased by 15V.

• 300V = learner banged on wall

• 315V = learner quiet and no longer answered

• Each time participant tried to stop, 4 prods were given

• E.g: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’

• Study ended when all 4 prods were given or teacher delivered 450V

Milgram - results

Full 450V = 65%

300V = 100%

After 300V = 5 stopped

Average = 368V

Milgram - Conclusion

• Individuals are susceptible to social influence of an authority figure + they will undertake actions they wouldn’t normally do, even when there is potential harm to another.

Study to support Milgram - Sheridan & King

• Similar study, administered real shocks to a puppy.

• 13 males & 13 females

• Voltage started at 15V, increased by 15V until 450V, (puppy experienced different voltages).

• Participants given same 4 prods.

• Signs of moral strain seen (crying + pacing back and forth).

• Some tried to go against experimenter secretly (guiding puppy to right positition or shortening duration of shocks)

Study to support Milgram - Sheridan & King - Results

Females = 13/13 gave maximum shock

Males = 7/13 gave maximum shock.

75% of participants were willing to give puppy shock.

No difference between actually giving shocks to puppy and applying fake shocks to a person, Milgram’s participants thought they were giving real shocks.

Study to support Milgram - Hofling et al

• Role of obedience in a hospital

• Nurse alone at her station received a call from ‘doctor’

• Told to administer 20mg of a drug they weren’t aware of to a patient.

• Nurses were not allowed to take orders from the phone and this was twice the safe dosage.

Hofling et al - Results

• 21/22 nurses administered the drug.

• Supports Milgram’s research

Rundown office - Aim

How environment + context affect obedience

Telephonic Instructions - Aim

How proximity affects obedience.

Ordinary Man - Aim

How appearance of authority figure affects obedience

Rundown office - Results

Obedience = 48%

Rundown office - Strength - Internal validity

• Same office used each time, different situations did not affect internal validity.

Rundown office - Weakness - Individual differences

• Difficult to control for individual differences.

• E.g: some participants may be used to working in a rundown office and are more likely to obey.

Telephonic instructions - Results

Obedience = 22.5%

Telephonic instructions - Strength

• Easy to control proximity due to phone.

• If it was simply physical distance, it would have to be controlled strictly which would make the task seem artificial.

Telephonic instructions - Weakness

• Proximity in terms of obedience is typically about physical distance, not over the phone.

• E.g: if a teacher wants a student to be quiet, they will stand close to them.

• May lack internal validity

Ordinary man - Results

• Obedience = 20%

• 15/20 refused to go beyond 300V

Ordinary man - Strength

• Because the participant saw a draw for the role, lower risk of SDB.

• High internal validity

Ordinary man - Weakness

• Only 20 participants used (40 in original)

• More difficult to check for consistency to ensure reliability, as there may have been individual differences affecting reliability.

Code of ethics and conduct

• Produced by BPS

• Focuses on primary ethical principles

Primary ethical principles

• Respect

• Competence

• Responsibility

• Integrity

Respect - Code of ethics

• Respect for dignity of people recognises the inherent worth of all people regardless of prejudices.

• All people are worthy of equal moral consideration.

• (Confidentiality, sympathy + distress tolerance)

Competence - Code of ethics

• Ability to provide services to a professional standard.

Responsibility - Code of ethics

• Must accept appropriate responsibility for what is in your control.

Integrity - Code of ethics

• Must be honest and truthful in actions and decisions.

BPS Ethics code idiom

Crackheads run in dodgy postcodes, popping Dushane.

Confidentiality - ethics code

• Allocate a number to each participant or use initials (KF).

• No other information can be published if it can reveal who they are.

Right to withdraw - ethics code

• Participants told at start of study and in debrief

Informed consent - ethics code

• Participants must be fully aware of the aim of the study.

Deception - ethics code

• Participants must not be lied to about the nature of the research

Protection of participants - ethics code

• Study must not cause physical or psychological harm

Privacy - Ethics code

• Studies must not be conducted in a place the participant would expect to be observed or with informed consent.

Debrief - Ethics code

• Remind participant of confidentiality, right to withdraw + told real aim.

Milgram - Protection of participants

• Majority showed signs of nervousness + stress.

• Included sweating, stuttering + nervous laughter

Milgram - Protection of participants - Positive

• Every participant was debriefed after the experiment and reassured that their behaviour was a normal response.

• A sample of the participants were interviewed by a psychiatrist and they found no long term damage.

Milgram - right to withdraw

• Participants were told they could leave the study and would still receive the payment.

• But some of the prods made it difficult to exercise their right to withdraw.

• ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’

• Participants were paid before the study so may have felt obliged to continue.

Milgram - Informed consent

• Study involved deception

• Participants were unaware of the true nature of the study

• Nowadays the BPS weighs up the possible future benefits of a study with the negative effects to decide if it should run.

• It may be argued the strengths of Milgram’s study outweigh these issues.

Milgram - benefits of the study

• New insight into the area of obedience

• Showed impact of situation on obedience.

• Allows us to understand not only bad people are capable of doing bad things.

• Help us be more aware of the power of authority figures + the need to think carefully.

• Encouraged replications of the study - allows us to check the reliability.

Burger

• Replication of Milgram’s study

• With alterations to make it ethical.

• Includes Milgram’s variations (confederate as second teacher and claims the learner has a heart condition)

• Independent groups design

Burger - Aims

• To see if Milgram’s results would reoccur on participants today if replicated in a more ethical way.

• To see if personality variables like empathy and LoC influence obedience.

• To see if the presence of a disobedient ‘model’ impacts obedience levels.

Burger - IV

• Base condition or model refusal condition.

Burger - DV

• Obedience - measured by how many volts were delivered before the participant refused to go on, all prods were used or 150V was reached.

Burger - Sample

• 70 participants (of 76, 6 dropped out)

• 29 men + 41 women

• Aged 20 - 81

• Random allocation to 1 of 2 conditions

• Volunteer sample (newspaper + online ads + fliers in library)

• Paid $50 before study

• More ethically diverse than Milgram (not all from New Haven)

Burger - Sample screening

First screening - before attendance

• Dropped if they had heard of Milgram’s study

• Dropped if they had attended 2 or more psychology classes

Second screening - questionnaire upon arrival (still paid)

• Dropped if they had anxiety issues or drug dependency

Burger - Procedure - baseline

• Experimenter = White man in 30s

• Confederate (learner) = 50s

• Script resembles Milgram’s but test shock only 15V (not 45V)

• Participant + teacher watch learner strapped to electric chair

• Sit at shock generator in other room

• Teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions

• Learner uses buzzer to indicate answer

• If answer is wrong, experimenter tells teacher to deliver shock (15V + increases by 15V each time)

• Learner indicates he has a ‘slight heart condition’

• Experimenter replies the shocks aren’t harmful

• 75V = sounds of pain

• 150V - cries he wants to stop, complains of chest pain

• Experimenter stops teacher before 165V if they attempt to deliver it.

Burger - Procedure - modelled refusal

• Experimenter = White man in 30s

• Confederate (learner) = 50s

• Script resembles Milgram’s but test shock only 15V (not 45V)

• Participant + teacher watch learner strapped to electric chair

• Sit at shock generator in other room

• Teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions

• Learner uses buzzer to indicate answer

• If answer is wrong, experimenter tells teacher to deliver shock (15V + increases by 15V each time)

• Learner indicates he has a ‘slight heart condition’

• Experimenter replies the shocks aren’t harmful

• 75V = sounds of pain

• 150V - cries he wants to stop, complains of chest pain

• Experimenter stops teacher before 165V if they attempt to deliver it.

• Second confederate pretends to be second teacher, delivers shocks with participant watching.

• 90V, teacher says ‘I don’t know about this’ to participant

• Teacher refuses to go on + experimenter tells participant to take over.

Burger questionnaires

• Interpersonal Reactivity Index

• Desirability of Control Scale

Interpersonal Reactivity Index

• 28 question test

• Measures empathy

Desirability of Control Scale

• 20 question test

• Measures LoC

Burger - ethical controls

• Two step screening process - removes people who may be unduly stressed by experience

• Participants told 3 times in writing of their right to withdraw + they could keep money

• Experimenter was a clinical psychologist - skilled in spotting + reacting to distress

• ‘Test shock'‘ was less harmful 15V (not 45V)

• After study - did not allow time to pass before introduction of learnner + debrief

Burger - results -

Prepared to pass 150V

• Milgram = 82.5%

• Base condition = 70%

• Modelled refusal condition = 63.3%

Burger - results - gender

• No significant difference in obedience

• Women were slightly less likely to obey in modelled refusal condition (not significantly)

Burger - results - empathy

• No significant impact on obedience

• In baseline condition those who stopped before 150V had significantly higher LoC

Burger - Conclusions

• Milgram’s results still stand years later

• People are still impacted by situational factors to obey an authority figure even if against their moral values

• Participants with internal LoC showed relucgtance earlier in baseline condition.

• Tells us importance of further education about dangers of obeying authority figures

• Doesn’t tell us about obedience in a non-artificial setting

Burger - Similarities to Milgram

• Researcher used similar script

• Same shock generator method used to assess obedience

• Similar looking confederate + experimenter

• Experimenter wore a labcoat

Burger - Differences to Milgram

• Voltage - lower voltage - more likely to fully obey (knowing 150V is not fatal)

• Participants used - wider range - more generalisable to population

• Screening of participants - ruled out individual differences (mental health issues)

Situational factors affecting obedience

• Proximity to authority figure

• Whether we see the person giving instructions as an authority figure

Individual differences

People who behave different to majority

• Gender

• Personality

• Culture

Authoritarian personality

• More likely to be concerned with status + submissive to authority figures

• Measured using F - Scale (questionnaire examining role of personality traits in tendency to be prejudiced)

• May come from harsh parenting inducing fear of authority figures

Authoritarian traits

•  A respect for legitimate authority

•  A high regard for status

• A belief in a black and white view of right and wrong

• Conventional values

• More prejudiced

Authoritarian Personality - evaluation - real life application

• If we consider mass obedience (Nazi Germany)

• It is not possible that all Germans had a harsh childhood

• There are also people who had a harsh childhood and still aren’t obedient

Authoritarian Personality - evaluation - study to support

• Milgram + Elms

• Found those who scored low on the F - Scale were less likely to obey.

Locus of Control - Milgram

• 118 participants from past experiment asked to judge responsibility for giving the shocks

• Dissenting participants (didn’t go full 450V) = 48% blamed themselves

• Obedient participants = 25% blamed learner

Locus of control

The extent people think they are responsible for their own successes + failures.

Internal locus of control

Believe they are responsible for what happens to them

External locus of control

Believe that what happens to them is out of their control, due to luck, chance or fate

Locus of control - evaluation - study to refute

Holland

• Conducted variations of Milgram’s study

• Found no link between LoC + obedience

Locus of control - study to support

Blass

• Reanalysed Holland’s findings using more modern analysis

• Found those with an internal LoC showed more resistance especially if they saw themselves being coerced by the experimenter.