Obedience - Obedience, Situational V, Situational E, Dispositional V

W Ethical issues

Role allocations, fixed. Shocks, fake. Memory test? NO, it was obedience.

No right to withdraw. Lack of informed consent.

Dealt with the issues by debriefing after the study.

S Burger

Obedience Lite. Avoids ethical issues.

Data collection happened until 150 Volts worth of shocks.

79% continued to the end and were classed as fully obedient.

High external validity as lots of replications.

W Orne + Holland

Participants didn’t fully believe in the setup.

Developed demand characteristics

S Bickman

Confederates 3 uniforms

1. Milkman

2. Security guard

3. Suit and tie

3 situations

1. Lending coin for parking metre

2. Picking up litter

3. Moving to other side of bus stop.

Twice as likely to obey security guard than the others.

Supports situational variables idea.

S Meeus and Raajimakers

Dutch people asked to say stressful things to confederates.

90% obedience

Decreased obedience when the instructor wasn’t in the room.

Suggests that Milgram’s findings are not just limited to American men. Applies to women and other countries too.

W Smith + Bond

Looked at 2 Milgram replications in India and Jordan 1968 and 1985.

Both countries culturally different to USA and other replications involved countries that are culturally similar to the USA (Spain, Scotland, Australia)

Not appropriate to apply findings to all cultures

LoA W Rank + Johnson

Replicated Hofling’s study -

Nurses ordered by telephone to give overdose of drug unknown to them by a doctor who they didn’t know. 95% obeyed.

Modifications - Ordered directly, asked to give overdose of drug they did know. They knew the doctor.

2/18 obeyed despite being in a hierarchy.

Suggests that people are just more obedient than others

LoA S Mantell

LoA S Kilham + Mann

85% of German participants went to 450V in a Milgram style study

16% of Australian participants went to 450V in a Milgram style study.

Suggests that authority is more legitimate in some cultures. Reflects how societies are structured.

AS S Milgram

If Experimenter said they were responsible if the Learner is hurt, participants were more likely to obey until the end.

Acted as the Experimenter’s agent.

AS W Birney

Agentic shift doesn’t explain the results of Milgram’s variations. Obedience is a product of the situation and not just an inclination to obey.

All characteristics of obedience need to be taken into account.

S Elms + Milgram

Interviewed participants from the Milgram study. Took the F-Scale as a part of it.

Obedient participants scored higher on the F-Scale than the disobedient ones. Supports Adorno’s view. Obedient people have similar characteristics to those with an AP

W Limited explanation

AP doesn’t explain a whole population’s obedience.

Millions of Germans obeyed Hitler despite having different personalities. Not all have AP.

Adorno’s theory is limited.

W Mallinas

F-Scale measures 2 things

• Submission - Obedience to all authorities.

• Traditionalism - Obedience to only socially conservative authorities

Both strong in right-wing, submission only strong in left wing.

Submission is the key element so Adorno’s theory doesn’t explain all destructive obedience incidents.