Obedience

Obedience

Following the orders of an authority figure.

Social Influence

How our opinions, beliefs and behaviours are influenced by the real/imaged pressure of an individual or group.

Agency Theory

Obedience can be explained by a shift in how we see ourselves and our behaviour. When told what to do by someone we see as authority, we experience ‘agentic shift’ from the autonomous state, where we are in control of our own decisions and take responsibility for them, to the agentic state, where we switch responsibility to the authority figure and act against our moral compass. People go through moral strain during the autonomous state when they are instructed by an authority figure, but do not fully agree with what they are being told to do as it goes against their moral compass and experience psychological distress. This is reduced when the individual is in the agentic state as they no longer see their actions as their own.

Requirements of agency theory

• If the person believes in the legitimacy of the authority

• Belief that the authority figure will take responsibility for his/her actions.

Evaluation of agency theory (Strengths)

• Plenty of research to support agency theory; Milgrams participants showed signs of moral strain by nervously laughing and then some continued the shocks after being reassured the researcher would accept responsibility (showing agentic shift).

• Can explain real life situations of obedience such as the Holocaust. People argue that normal people would not carry out atrocities in the autonomous state, and the Nazis did so as they were under control/order of Hitler who they saw took responsibility for their actions, allowing them to carry out immoral actions.

Evaluation of agency theory (Weaknesses)

• Some people do not portray agency theory as shown in Milgrams experiment, where 35% of participants did not obey. Portraying individual differences, meaning difference in personalities may be the reason why we obey.

• It does not explain why we still obey authority even when they are not present, for example we obey the law when there are no police present.

Social Power

The ability of a person to create conformity/obedience even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes.

Social Power Theory

Some people have more influence than others, e.g bosses have power over workers, parents have power over children.

Reward Power

Giving someone a reward e.g teachers giving students praise

Coercive power

The ability to give punishments e.g firing someone.

Legitimate power

Power based on position; person being influenced sees the person as having power over them. E.g policemen

Referent power

Influence based on charisma and charm. E.g social media influencers

Expert power

Power that comes from others beliefs that the power holder possesses superior skills/abilities, e.g experts in a subject someone wants to know more about.

Evaluation of SPT (Strengths)

• Helpful for leaders who understand it as they can become more effective. Can also help others spot a good/bad leader.

• Can be used to explain behaviour in society, e.g holocaust soliders that had legitimate power were obeyed and tiktokers with lots of followers have referent power.

Evaluation of SPT (Weaknesses)

• Ignores individual differences of personality. People with higher internal locus of control may be less likely to obey someone as they take more personal responsibility for their actions, regardless of perceived power.

• SPT ignores the fact that an authority figure is less powerful when there are many people - it is thought that their power is spread between everyone.

Social Control

It considers how psychological knowledge may be used to manage/control others’ behaviour. SPT gives us knowledge that can be used to manage individuals in certain contexts e.g in workplaces. This poses ethical concerns as it raises q’s about the use of power in society and organisations, particularly if using coercive measures to command obedience. Though if SP is used responsibly, it can maintain order/safety.

Milgram 1963 AIM

AIM: Milgram wanted to investigate the extent to which individuals would follow orders from an authority figure if it was apparent the actions would cause harm.

Milgram PROCEDURES

PROCEDURES: 40 adult males replied to a paid advertised study on the effects of punishment on learning. This was done at Yale university, where the participant met a ‘middle aged accountant’ who was a confederate. They both drew papers that told them if they would be the ‘learner’ or the ‘teacher’ though the confederate would always get the learner. Teacher watched learner be strapped to a chair and taken to another room where they could no longer see the learner and where the generator was kept. The teacher was given a shock of 45V to show the generator worked and was instructed to give shocks of increasingly high voltage whenever an incorrect response was given (starting at 15V increasing in 15V). On the dial was a danger rating from 15-60 being a slight shock to 435-450 being XXX. At 120V the learner yellowed out it was becoming painful and signs of pain increased as the study went on. At 330V the learner gave no answer and made no signs of pain. If any point the participant questioned the experiment, the exterminator gave a series of prompts in order:

‘Please continue’, ‘The experiment requires that you continue’, It is absolutely essential that you continue’, You have no other choice you must go on’. After those were said it was allowed that the participant could withdraw.

Milgram FINDINGS

FINDINGS: Psychologists predicted prior to the study that less than 1% would reach the top voltage (450V). Milgram found that 100% participants gave a shock of 300V and 65% gave a ‘fatal’ voltage of 450V.

Milgram CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS: Individuals are very susceptible to the social influence of an authority figure and they will do actions they would not normally do even if there was potential harm to someone else.

GRAVES - Milgram

G - Study was all American males around the same age, andocentric and culturally biased. (Obedience may change in more collectivist cultures or with women.)

R - Study had standardised procedure and was controlled - the same experimenter in a lab coat, same prompts and same setting. This means it can be replicated (Burger 2009).

A - Has real life application in how real people act against their own moral compass as they are obeying an authority figure. E.g the Holocaust or the Lai Massacre.

V - Low mundane realism as the actual task is artificial; shocking people is not a normal event.

Environment was a controlled lab situation, lacking ecological validity as people behave differently in ordinary situations.

E - Study broke many ethical guidelines: Deception: The participants thought they were taking part in a study on the effect of punishment on learning.

Participants showed physical signs of psychological stress: Nervous laughter, trembling etc.

Right to withdraw was not shown to participants, as they were given prompts such as ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.

Sheridan and King 1972 AIM

AIM: Same as Milgrams, to investigate if people are willing to do bad things due to obeying authority.

Sheridan and King PROCEDURE

PROCEDURE: puppy used instead of people, real shocks were administered to it. 13 females and 13 males took part in an experiment that involved shocking a puppy who made an incorrect response. Same voltages were used and same prompts were used.

Sheridan and King FINDINGS

FINDINGS: all females applied the maximum shock whereas 7 males applied the maximum shock (54%).

Sheridan and King CONCLUSION

CONCLUSIONS: suggests there is no difference in administering real shocks or not as both in Milgrams and Sheridan and king they believed they were giving real shocks.

Females are more likely to obey.

Sheridan and king EVALUATION

Hofling et al 1966 AIM

AIM: To investigate obedience to authority in a real world setting. More realistic version of Milgrams study by conducting field studies on nurses unaware that they were involved in an experiment.

Hofling et al PROCEDURE

PROCEDURE: 22 real nurses were phoned by a doctor who told them to administer a too large, possibly lethal, dose of drug to a patient. The medication was not real, though the nurses believed it was. If the nurses administered the drug, they would have broken 3 rules:

• not allowed to accept instruction over the phone

• Dose was double the maximum limit stated on the box

• Medicine was unauthorised

Hofling et al FINDINGS

FINDINGS: 21/22 nurses obeyed the doctors orders and administered the medicine. Only 1 nurse questioned the identity of the researcher (‘Dr Smith’).

Hofling et al CONCLUSION

CONCLUSIONS: demonstrated that people are very unwilling to question authority. Hoflings study showed that the social pressure brought about by the imbalance of power could lead to a nurse putting a patient at risk, rather than disobeying orders.

Hofling et al EVALUATION

EVALUATION:

• High ecological validity due to it taking place in a real life environment where the participants work.

• No demand characteristics as the nurses were aware they were taking part, they were just acting normally doing their everyday jobs.

• Very replicable as it has standardised procedure, with the doctor giving the same scripted instructions to each nurse over the phone.

• Broke ethical guidelines due to deception as nurses were not aware they were taking part. Some nurses were left distressed which could have had negative psychological consequences for the particpants.

Milgram’s variations: Rundown office block

AIM: To investigate the effects of the situation on levels of obedience.

PROCEDURE: Patients completed the same task but the situation was in a rundown office block instead of Yale. Participants were assumed to obey less as it wasn’t as prestigious.

FINDINGS: Obedience rates of 48%.

CONCLUSION: Obedience levels dropped as people perceived the authority as less legitimate due to the less prestigious office block.

EVALUATION:

• High controls as the same office was used each time so it ensures different situations did not affect the internal validity of the results.

• It is different to control for individual differences here.

Milgram’s variations: Telephonic Instructions

AIM: To investigate proximity as a factor affecting obedience.

PROCEDURE: Instructions were given to the participant face to face, then the researcher left the room and gave the instructions and prods via a telephone.

FINDINGS: Obedience rates fell to 22.5%

CONCLUSIONS: Physical proximity is a key factor influencing obedience. Perceived power was reduced when proximity reduced, lowering participants obedience rates.

EVALUATION:

• Easy to control proximity due to the use of a telephone.

• Proximity in terms of obedience is more about physical distance rather than over a telephone. E.g a teacher moving closer to a student to make them behave. Lacks internal validity.

Milgram’s variations: Ordinary man gives orders

AIM: To investigate the impact of authority figures and status, on obedience rates.

PROCEDURE: 3 participants arrived at lab and drew papers saying their roles of teacher, learner and experimenter (rigged so the teacher was always the participant). The original study used Mr Williams as the Experimenter, who looked severe and wore a lab coat. In this Variation, Mr Williams explains the procedure to the participant but then is called away. Crucially, Mr Williams does not tell the Teachers to increase the shock by 15V with each incorrect answer.

There is a second confederate present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of “writing down the times” of each test. With the Experimenter gone, this confederate suggests “a new way of doing the study,” taking the voltage up by 15V each time there’s a mistake.

FINDINGS: Obedience rates dropped to 20%, 15/20 refused to go beyond 300V.

CONCLUSIONS: The authority has to be seen as legitimate enough in order for obedience rates to be high.

EVALUATION:

• High internal validity was maintained as the participant saw the draw for the teacher, learner and experimenter meaning lower risk of social desirability bias.

• Small sample size of 20 compared to original 40, it is more difficult to check for consistency to ensure reliability of results as there may have been individual differences affecting reliability.

Code of ethics and conduct 2009

Produced by BPS, designed to guide all members of the BPS in their day-to-day professional conduct. Code focuses on 4 primary ethical principles:

• Respect

• Competence

• Responsibility

• Integrity

Burger 2009 AIM

AIM: To find out if the same results as Milgram 1963 study re-occur when the study is replicated with modern participants in 2009 and in a more ethical way. Also, to see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience. Finally, to see if the presence of a disobedient model makes a difference to obedience levels.

Burger PROCEDURE

IV: Base condition (same as Milgram) compared with the model refusal (rebellious partner)condition.

DV: Obedience was measured by how many volts the last shock to be delivered was - before the participant refused to continue, exhausted all the prods or reached 450v.

SAMPLE: 70 participants (men and women ages 20-81) were randomly allocated into 1 of 2 conditions. They were a volunteer sample recruited through newspaper and online ads/fliers left in libraries. Paid $50 before the study. Participants were screened and dropped if they had heard of Milgrams experiment, had attended more than 2 psychology lessons and had anxiety or drug dependency. Experimenter is a white man in his 30s, the learner (confederate) is in his 50s.

PROCEDURE: Milgrams Variation 5 and 17 were incorporated into the study. Script resembles Milgrams but test shock is only 15v not 45v. The participant/teacher watches the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room.

The teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter directs the teacher to deliver a shock, starting at 15V and going up in 15V intervals.

The learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful. At 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain. At 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains.

If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.

In the “model refusal” condition, a second confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks, with the naïve participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher turns to the naïve participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the naïve participant to take over delivering the shocks. The participant/teacher watches the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room.

The teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter directs the teacher to deliver a shock, starting at 15V and going up in 15V intervals.

The learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful. At 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain. At 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains.

If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.

In the “model refusal” condition, a second confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks, with the naïve participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher turns to the naïve participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the naïve participant to take over delivering the shocks.

Burger also used ethical controls improved on Milgram's original:

• There was a two-step screening process to filter out anyone who might be unduly stressed by the experience

• The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50

• The experimenter was actually a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress

• The "test shock" experienced by the participants was only a mild 15V, not Milgram's painful 45V

• Burger did not allow time to pass before he introduced the (healthy) learner and debriefed the participants

Burger FINDINGS

FINDINGS: 70% of participants in baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V. 63.3% in the modelled refusal conditioned wanted to continue past the 150V point.

Women and men were compared but no difference in obedience was found.

In the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher internal locus of control.

Burger CONCLUSION

CONCLUSIONS: Milgrams results still stand. People are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure even if it goes against their moral values. Participants with an internal LoC tended to show reluctance earlier than those with an external LoC but only in the base condition.

Burger EVALUATION

How was Burger similar/different to Milgrams:

Similarities:

• Very similar script used to Milgrams

• Used the same shock generator method

• Similar looking confederate and experimenter

• Had the experimenter wear a lab coat

  Differences:

• Voltage

• Participants used

• Screening of participants

Individual differences: Personality

LOCUS OF CONTROL:

Locus of control (Rotter 1966): extent to which people believe they are responsible for their own successes and failures.

• High internal LOC: less likely to obey and resist authority as they believe they are responsible for what happens to them.

• High external LOC: more likely to obey as they believe what happens to them is out of their control due to luck, chance, fate or uncontrollable circumstances.

Support for locus of control:

Holland 1967: conducted variations on Milgrams and found no link between LOC and obedience

Blass 1991: reanalysed these findings using more modern analysis and found participants with an internal locus of control showed more resistance.

Schurz 1985: Austrian study where modified Milgrams was used where participants administered ultrasound stimulation to a learner and were told that the highest level caused skin damage. 80% obeyed and 20% displayed an internal locus of control and took responsibility for their actions.

Oliner and oliner 1988: interviewed Germans who sheltered Jews during Nazi germany and found they tended to have an internal locus of control and scored highly on social responsibility.

AUTHORITARIAN:

Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al 1950): those with an authoritarian personality are particularly concerned with status and are more likely to be submissive towards authority figures.

The F scale was created, a questionnaire that examined the role of personality traits in the tendency to be prejudiced.

Those with authoritarian traits showed:

• respect for legitimate authority

• High regard for status

• Belief in black/white view of right/wrong

• Conventional values

These people are more prejudiced than those who scored lower on these traits.

Adorno argued that harsh parenting produced a fear of parents which led to the need to obey authority figures later in life.

Evaluation of the authoritarian personality explanation of obedience: e.g in Nazi Germany it is not possible that all German people had a harsh childhood, refuting the theory. However, Elms and Milgram (1963) found that those who scored low on the F-scale were less likely to obey, so supporting the theory. However, there are those who had very harsh parenting in childhood and are still not obedient to authority figures.

Individual differences: Gender

Social stereotypes: women are more compliant and less aggressive than men.

Majority of research does not support this stereotype:

• Milgram conducted his study again with a sample of 40 women, found they were equally as obedient as men. However they did suffer more stress.

• Burger found no differences in obedience.

• Sheridan and King found women were more obedient as 100% of women continued to the maximum shock level while only 54% of men did.

The researchers asked a separate group of people to predict the maximum shock level they thought men and women would go to. Of these, 86% of participants believed that the average woman would not administer a shock higher than 150 V.

Individual differences: Culture

• Individualistic culture: tend to behave more independently e.g more western cultures (USA, UK, Australia)

• Collectivist culture: tend to behave as a group based on cooperation, meaning compliance is important for the stability of the group. E.g Japan, Korea.

Individualist are less likely to obey as they place their own desires above others. Collectivist do not want to upset the social harmony of the group and therefore are more likely to obey.

USA has been shown to have the lowest rates of obedience with Bock’s study (50%). This is expected as its a strongly individualistic society.

Kilham and Mann 1974

AIM: investigated obedience to authority in different cultures by comparing rates of obedience among particpants from the USA, Mexico and India.

PROCEDURE: Replicated Milgrams study

FINDINGS: Participants from Mexico and India which are collectivist, showed higher rates of obedience to authority than the USA.

CONCLUSIONS: Individualistic and collectivist cultures affect obedience rates.

Social Impact theory (Latané 1981)

Explains there are 3 factors that can determine the impact of an authority figure upon a target:

• strength: more strength (legitimate status or power) will exert greater authority over target

• Immediacy: if the authority is closer to the target, the influence will be greater compared to if there is a greater distance between them

• Number: if there are more authority figures relative to targets, the influence will be greater