studies on obedience

• Procedure of milgrams study

Procedure;

• Controlled observation

• Yale university

• 40 males ( who answers to the advert ‘ study of memory ‘)

• Paid $4

• Pps told could be a teacher or learner ( rigged - real pps all teachers )

• Teacher introduced to mr Wallace the learner who is strapped to an electric chair in a room next door

• Teacher read words to learner and is told by experimenter in a lab coat to shock every time the leaner answered wrong - inceasing by 15 volts each time

• If teacher asks advice are given a series of probs by the experimenter - eg; ‘please continue ‘ ‘ it is absolutely essential you continue’

Findings and conclusions of milgrams study

Findings

• 100% Of pps shocked up to 300 volts

• 64% continued to 450volts

• Behavioural signs of nervousness - pps sweated, trembled, strutted, nervous laughing etc

• 3 pps had a seizure

Conclusions

• ordinary people are astonishly obedient shows power of social situations where our values disappear (situational Scot’s instead of dispositional )

• Unsettling findings - holocaust could happen again

How many people went to 450v shock

• baseline study at Yale - 65%

• Location variation - run down office - 47.5%

• Proximity variation - teacher and leaner in the same room - 40%

• Touch proximity - teacher forces leaners hand onto shock - 30%

• Remote instructions - orders over the phone - 20.5%

• Uniform variation - experimenter played member of public - 20%

Ethical issues with milgrams study

Deception - told was memory study - pps needed to believe shock was real. Milgram said this was necessary to create realism

Right to withdraw - pps ‘ordered’ to continue not really free to leave (prompts from experimenter to stay) milgram told them at the start they can leave he hypothesised that they would refuse to obey

Methological criticisms - external validity and defence - milgram

A limitation

• Dated (low time validity ) - last published study was 1976 times have changed

• Initial study only used males from USA (low population validity)

However:

Research replications (eg; slater et al ) involving virtual characters showed similar levels of obedience as do supporting studies such as tarnow et al who assessed data from plan accidents 19 out of 37 were due to hesistance or over dependence. First officers were too dependent

Aims and method of adornos Fscale research

Aim - is there a relationship between authoritarian personalities and obedience

Method - 2000 US adults white middle class males completed questionnaires to measure their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

They developed several attitude scales including the f scale for measuring potential for racism which is used to measure authoritarian personality

Results and conclusions of adornos F scale research

Results - they found a relationship between authoritarian personalities and prejudicial beliefs towards the weak

People with authoritarian learnings identified with ‘strong’ people and were disdainful of the ‘weak’ they were conclusions of status showing respect reservence and servility to those of higher status. They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups

They found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Conclusions - people with authoritarian personality characteristics are highly likely to think prejudically and are obedient to authority figures

Summary of the four main features of the authoritarian personality

1. Dislike to those they see as inferior

2. Fixed, inflexible outlook

3. Highly conventional ideas

4. Respect for authority

Research supporting dispositional explanations of obedience

P. There is research supporting the link between of personality and obedience

E. Milgram and elms interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and been fulling obedient

E. They completed all the F scale as the part of the interview these 20 obedient pps cored significantly higher on the overall F scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient pps the 2 groups were clearly quite different in terms of authoritarianism

L. This finding supports adornos et al views that obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have an authoritarian personality

Research flaws - F scale

P. The explanation is based on research that has significant flaws

E. Described as ‘a comedy of methodological errors’ every item is worded in the same direction so you get a high score just by ticking the same line of boxes

E. People who agree with items on the f scale are not necessarily authoritarian - wearily ‘ acquiesces ‘ who tend to agree with statements regardless of context

L. This causes us to question the conclusions and assumptions Adorno made

Correlation not causation - F scale

P. Just because a correlation has been found this does not explain causation

E. Adorno and his colleagues measured an impressive range of variables and found many significant correlations between them (eg; authoritarianism was strongly correlated to prejudice against minority groups )

E. However no matter how strong the correlation between the two variables might be it does not follow one causes the other

L. Therefore Adorno could not claim that a harsh parenting style causes development of an authoritarian personality