obedience

definition of obedience

Behaving as instructed usually in response to an individual rather than group pressure. This usually takes place in a hierarchy by the person issuing the orders is of higher status and the person obeying the order. Obedience has because the individual feels they have little choice: they cannot resist or refuse to obey. It is unlikely to involve a change in private opinion.

Milfran’s Study into obedience (1963)

A: To find out if ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order to inflict pain on another person

P: 40 male volunteers were recruited after they responded to newspaper advertisement asking people to help in a memory experiment. The study took place in a laboratory at Yale University. The experiment told the participants that the study concerned to the role of punishment in learning. Participants met a confederate of the experiment who they believe is a real participants. Lots were drawn for whom should be the learn and who the teacher. This was organised that the Confederate always took the role of learner and the participant always had the teachers role. The participants watched the confederate being strapped into a chair in an adjoining room with its arms attached to electrodes. The participant read around a series of word pairs and then tested the confederate memory. Every time the learner made an error, he was to be given an electric shook administered by the participant. The participant teacher sat in front of a shock generator in the room next to the Confederate. The generator has 30 levels, each of which indicated the level of shock to be given. It started at 15 V and rose in 15 V increments to 450 V labelled danger severe shock XXX. No shocks actually admitted to the Confederate. The learner was scripted to pound loudly on the adjoining world at 300 V and after 315 V to stop pounding and give no further answers. If the teacher hast to minister the shock, the research encouraged him to continue: prod one please continue. Prod to the experiment requires you to continue. Prod three it is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod four you have no other choice, you must go on. The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue or until 450 V was reached and given four times

F: All participants went to at least 300 V on the shock generator. 65% of participants went to 450 V. No participants descent verbally but continued to obey the researcher who brought them to continue giving the shocks. Many participant showed signs of extreme anxiety, biting their lips and trembling.

C: The study clearly demonstrate the power of the situation of individuals. Under certain circumstances, most people will obey orders that go against conscience. Milgrim concluded that crimes against humanity are most likely the outcomes of situational factors rather than dispositional factors.

Milgram’s before experiment survey.

He carried out surveys beforehand asking participants how many participants would go to 450 V on his shock generator. They grossly underestimated the levels of obedience – they thought that most would stop at the early or middle shock range. Psychiatrist estimated that 0.1% of participants would administer the highest voltage and that most would stop around 120 V.

Internal validity

This is the extent to which the finding of an experiment can be attributed to the effect of IV

External validity

The extent to which research findings can be generalised is high external validity if the result can be generalised other populations, other situations outside the research setting/real life and other times

milgram’s shock experiment evaluation summary

• internal validity - Orne and Holland

• internal validity - disputes

• populaiton validity

• ecological validity

milgram’s shock experiment evaluation - Internal validity, Orne and Holland

• Made by Orne And Holland (1968) as they believe that participants did not really believe that they were giving electric shocks and that they were not really distressed just pretending in order to please experiment. Therefore, they argue that Milgrim‘s participants were responding to demand characteristics instead of showing genuine obedience. They argue that there were many clues present in the experimental setup that suggested the situation was fake for example the experiment remaining common telling them to continue when the learner had appeared to have collapsed unconscious. Therefore, milligram study may like internality.

milgram’s shock experiment evaluation - internal validity, dispute

• Milgrim disputes both these criticisms by giving evidence that participants did believe the shocks were real:

  • video British clearly showed participants undergoing extreme stress for example crying And trembling

  • He also referred to post experimental interviews and questionnaire to support his views that the majority of participants believe they were administering real shocks. 56.1% fully believed, but only 2.4% were certain the shocks weren’t real.

  • Orne and Holland do not explain why Sam doesn’t refuse to continue to give shocks if there are many role-playing in the first place. Also, why were changing the location from Yale unique to a less prestigious one Reduce the level levels of obedience if participants knew the shocks were fake?

  • Sheridan and King did a similar experiment on puppies in which real shocks were given and participants could see the effects. 57% of participants still obeyed to the end. These results are similar to Milgrim, suggesting that his participants also believed the shocks were real.

  • All these points support the internal validity of Milgrim study

milgram’s shock experiment evaluation - populaiton validity

Milgrim sample was androcentric and ethnocentric , Therefore the sample light population ability. This means findings may not generalise to females and collectivist cultures. However, levels obedience have been found to be similar to females showing that the results can be generalised to women. Milgram’s procedures have also been replicated in other countries with similar results showing their results can generalise to most other cultures - Only exceptions are Germany 85% and Australia 40%). Therefore, the study may have population validity

milgram’s shock experiment evaluation - ecological validity

It has been argued that Milgram to experiment and the task of giving electric shocks is too artificial and therefore the study likes ecological validity. However, Hoffling carried out a field study in a real hospital that showed that obedience to an authority figure does occur in real life. Participants were nurses who received a phone call from an unknown Doctor Who asked them to administer 20 mg of a drug called Astrofen. If the nurse obeyed, she would be breaking a number of hospital rules (Giving twice the maximum allowable dose, administering a drug that was not on the ward list for the day, accepting instructions over the phone from an unfamiliar person, acting without assigned order from a doctor) - The drug was actually a harmless substance and the nurses were stopped by confederate before they gave the drug 21/22 nurses obeyed putting Milgrim findings. This shows that Milgram studied did not actually lack ecological validity. However, Rank and Jacobson (1977) Were concerned that nurses had no knowledge of the drug and no opportunity to seek advice therefore they repeated the procedure but using the drug Valium and nurses were able to speak to other nurses. Results showed the only 2/18 nurses proceeded to prepare the medication’s request requested. This shows that Hoffling study itself likes ecological validity and does not support megrims as first thought.

Reliability

The consistency of the findings

Validity

Accuracy of the results

What can influence internal validity

• Poor control of extraneous variables

• Demand characteristics

• Investigators/researcher effect

• Individual differences in the participants

How to improve internal validity

• Controlled extraneous variables which may affect DV

• Use repeated group designs individual differences between groups don’t cause differences in results

• Reduce demand characteristics by reducing investigator effects

What can influence external validity?

• Other people

• Other times

• Other situations

How to improve external validity

• Sample needs to be representative of the target population

• Partial replication in real world situations

situational factors affecting obedience - proximity

teacher and learner in the same room - 40% ps obeyed until the end teacher had to force the leaners hand onto a shock plate - 30% (increased responsibility, decreased obedience) researchers prods to continue via the phone from another room - 20.5%

situational factors affecting obedience - location of authority

change of venue from prestigious Yale university to a seedy office in a nearby town - 48% (situation had less legitimate authority)

situational factors affecting obedience - uniform of authority

experimenter was dressed as an ordinary member of the public rather than a white lab coated scientist - 20% (experimenter had less legitimate authority)

situational factors affecting obedience - other factors

• teacher given support from 2 other teachers (accomplices) who refused to continue - 10% (gives teacher confidence to disobey)

• teacher had an assistant who threw the switches when asked by the teacher - 92.5% (decreases responsibility teacher feels)

legitimate authority

• explanation for obedience

• legitimate social power is held by authority figures whos roles defined by society

• gives them the right to exert control over behaviour of others, we accept it due to the way we were brought up

• uniforms are often a sign of legitimate authority

evaluation of legitimate authority

• supported by Milgram’s variations. when the location moved downtown to a rundown office building the level of obedience dropped from 65% to 48% showing that when the power of authority provided by the prestige of Yale university was removed less obedience occurred. Thus showing the importance of authority in making people obey

• further support comes from Milgram’s variation where he changed the white lab coat from the original study to normal clothes. Obedience fell from 65% to 20% showing that when the power of authority provided by the prestige of a lab coat is removed less obedience occurred

graduated commitment

An important feature of Milgram's procedure was the gradual way in which participants became sucked into giving greater & greater levels of shock. They found it difficult to decide when to disengage from the procedure because each voltage increment was fairly small. Psychologists call this the foot in the door effect. Once people comply with a trivial, seemingly harmless request they find it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious, escalating requests. This is explained by the desire to appear consistent.

graduated commitment evaluation

• Support can be found from Milgram's study. During the study participants were asked to agree to many different demands which at first seemed harmless but gradually increased each time.' First they agreed to participate in the experiment, then agreed to draw lots, then administer a small 15v shock then 30v etc. At each point the small steps made it difficult for the participants to not comply if they had agreed to the previous step as the next did not seem different

• Further evidence can be seen from techniques salesmen use in the real world. For example, a window salesman first knocks at the door and asks to come in (a harmless request), then a free quote and before the customer is fully aware they have agreed to a full house of new windows.

agentic state

• explanation for obedience

• states that people operate on 2 levels

  • as autonomous individuals behaving voluntarily and aware of the consequences of their actions

  • on the agentic level seeing themselves as the agents of others and not responsible on their actions

• the consequences of moving to the agentic level (agentic shift) is that the individual attributes responsibility for their actions to the person in authority

• Milgram argues that most people mindlessly accept the orders of the person seen as being responsible for them

agentic state evaluation

• supported by Milgram’s study.

• many ps denied personal responsibillity, sayingthat they merely did what they were told by the experimenter. Most ps tried to refuse to obey the experimenter at some point during the study. Some of them questioned ‘who is responsible’ and the experimenter said ‘I am responsible’, participants often continued to shock the learner. This shows they shifted responsibility on to the experimenter and no longer acted autonomously

• one limitation is that there is contradictory research. Rank and Jacobson (1977) asked doctors to give nurses and order to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure, however almost all the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram’s participants. This suggests that the agentic shift explanation isn’t a complete explanation of obedience

evidence against situational explanations of obedience

evidence against situational explanations comes from individual differences. All participants in Milgram’s experiment were exposed to the same situation and same authority and yet not all of them obeyed. 35% disobeyed in the original experiment, this cannot be explained by any of these explanations. This suggests that dispositional factors such as personality or personal experiences may also influence whether a person obeys. For example, one person who disobeyed was Jewish and sed this to justify why she couldn’t harm another person. therefore, situational explanations cannot explain all instances of obedience.

Authoritarian personality

• Milgram explored the possible dispositional basis of obedience to explain why not participants of his study.

• People with this personality type likely to adhere to conventional values and have a belief in salute obedience or submission to authority.

• Therefore more susceptible to obeying those in authority and dismiss those lower in status

• Believed it forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting. The child would’ve been subjected not only strict discipline but would have been expected to show absolute loyalty to their parents. Failure to do some result in severe criticism. As a consequence of the child may have built up resentment and hostility towards their parents but unable to express their feelings directly to them due to fear of punishment. Therefore they take their frustration on those they consider a weaker but have respect those they consider are superior.

Identifying the authoritarian personality

Adorno used the F scale (F = Fascist), This contained statement such as ‘ Obedience and respectful authority are the most important of virtues. Children should earn.’ And ‘ Rules are there people to follow, not change.’ Agreeing with these statements indicates an authoritarian personality. Individuals with this type of personality rigid thinkers who obey authority, so the world is black-and-white and belief in adhering to social rules and hierarchies.

Key supporting study of authoritarian personality

Elms and Milgram (1966) carried out of follow-up study using by dispenser had taken part in one of Milgram’s experiments two months earlier. They expected 20 obedient participants and 20 defiant participants. Each participant completed the MMPI scale (Which measures a range of personality variables) And the California F scale to measure the level of authoritarianism. Participants were also asked a series of open ended questions, including questions about their attitudes to the experiment And the learner during their participation in Milgrim study, as well as questions about their childhood

Findings: Research has found a little difference between obedient and defiant participants on the MMPI variables. However, they did find high levels of authoritarianism among those participants classified as obedient compared to those classified as defiant. They are so found significant differences between obedient and defiant participant that were consistent with the idea of the authoritarian personality. Obedient participants saw the authority figure in Milgrim study as more admirable and the learner less so, therefore they were higher on the trait of authoritarianism.

Conclusion: Participants with an author term and personality to more likely to have obeyed in Milgrim’s shock study

authoritarian personality evaluation summary

• must be other explanations for obedience

• situational factors

• can’t apply to real life

• methodological problems

authoritarian personality evaluation - must be other explanations for obedience

It would be highly unlikely that the 65% of participants who fully obeyed had all experienced harsh parenting and therefore had authoritarian personalities. In fact, Milgram found some differences in the characteristics of the authoritarian personality and characteristics of obedient participants in his study. For example, participants were asked about their upbringing: many of the fully obedient participant reported having a very good relationship with their parents rather than having been raised up in an overly strict family as was the case for the authoritarian Participants. Therefore, suggest suggesting that not all obedient participants had an authoritarian personality so there must be other explanations for their obedience

authoritarian personality evaluation - situational factors

Milligram did not believe the evidence for dispositional factors leading to obedience was very strong. He showed that situational factors are very important in obedience. For example increasing proximity of the victim so teach and learner in the same room decreased obedience from 65% To 40%; changing location from Yale uni to see the office decreased obedience from 65% to 48% and the presence of disobedient allies decreased obedience from 65% to 10% these findings show that changing the situation affects obedience levels, thus changing the dispositional explanation

authoritarian personality evaluation - can’t apply to real life

Adorno used authoritarian personality type to explain antisemitic behaviour in Nazi Germany. But it seems highly unlikely that the whole of the German population possessed the same personality type! Instead so should identity maybe able to explain such obedience. This means that the German people identify with the anti-somatic Nazi state and consequently scapegoated the out group of Jewish people. Therefore, the idea of the authoritarian society may not be able to explain real life obedience.

authoritarian personality evaluation - methodological problems

The methodological problems using the F scale questionnaire to assess personality type. Firstly, all the questions are worded in the same direction with the same scale for scoring, people who agree with all items may be doing so to the tendency to agree to everything not necessarily because they have an authoritarian personality. Also, the questionnaire has no filler questions or lie detector questions. Therefore the questionnaire may lack internal validity.