obedience☑️

situational varibales, dispositonal explanation

milgrams obedience research

aim

stanley milgram (1963) sought an answer to why germans followed hitlers orders

aim: to assess obedience in a situation where the authority figure ordered p’s to give increasingly strong shocks to a learner in a different room.

baseline procedure

40 male US volunteers (aged 20-50) individually tested, supposedly on memory. the participant (teacher, T) and a confederate (learner, L, mr wallace) did a fixed draw in milgrams lab so the naïve p was the teacher. an experimenter was present, dressed in a grey lab coat.

-L was strapped to a chair and wired with electrodes, tasked with remembering paired words. T delivered increasingly stronger shocks with each wrong answer. at 300v, the learner pounded the wall + gave no response after, aside from another pound on the wall

milgrams obedience experiment findings and conclusions

findings- every p delivered shocks up to 300v. 12.5% stopped there while 65% continued to the highest level of 450v ie. they were fully obedient.

milgram asked 14 psychology students to prior predict the p’s behaviour; estimated no more that 3% would continue to 450v; showing findings were unexpected. all baseline p’s were debriefed and ensured the behaviour was entirely normal. 84% said they were glad to have participated

milgram concluded germans aren’t different as americans were willing to obey orders even when risk of harming another

conclusions

stanley milgrams obedience research

evaluation - strengths

-study replicated in a french documentary: p’s believed they were contestants in a new show + paid to give fake electric shocks to confederates. 80% delivered the maximum shock (460v) to an apparently unconscious man. their behaviour was identical to milgrams ps; nervous biting + laughter, supporting the original findings about obedience to authority. shows high external validity

-sheridan + king (1972) p’s gave real shocks to puppies in response to orders from an experimenter. despite the animals real distress, 54% of men and 100% of women gave a fatal shock, suggesting milgrams findings were genuine as people behaved obediently when shocks were real.

stanley milgrams obedience research

evaluation - limitations

low internal validity: orne and holland (1968) argued p’s didn’t believe enough in the setup (play-acting). 75% of p’s reported to believe shocks were genuine. perrys (2013) tapes of the procedure showed 2/3 disobeyed, suggesting p’s responded to demand characteristic, trying to fulfill the aims of the study (please-U effect)

-milgrams conclusion about blind obedience may not be justified. haslam et al. (2014) milgrams p’s obeyed the experimenter for the first 3 prods. every p given the 4th prod disobeyed. according to social identity theory (SIT), p’s only obeyed when told the scientific aims of the research. when ordered to blindly obey an authoritative figure, they refused - showing SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of milgrams findings, as milgram suggested ‘identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience.

obedience

a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from an authoritative figure who has punishing power when obedience isn’t carried out

situational variables

-milgram suspected there were factors (situational variables) that encourage obedience, and investigated them:

• proximity

• location

• uniform

situational variables

proximity

proximity variation: where T and L were in the same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.

touch proximity: T had to force L’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ if he refused to put it there him self, obedience dropped further to 30%

remote instruction: experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone, obedience fell to 20.5%. p’s also pretended frequently to give shocks.

reason: decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequence of their action.

situational variables

location

location: in a run down office block rather than yale university of the baseline study. obedience fell to 47.5%

-the prestigious university environment gave study legitimacy, credibility and authority. obedience in office block dropped because the p’s perceived low scientific nature of the procedure.

situational variables

uniform

experimenter was called away on a phone call at the start of the procedure + replaced by an ordinary member of the public (confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. obedience dropped to 20%, the lowest of all variations.

reason: uniforms encourage obedience as theyre widely recognised as symbols of authority. we accept that someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience because theyre authority is legitimate. someone without uniform has less right to expect our obedience.

obedience: situational variables

evaluation- strengths

-in a field experiment, bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dressed in either a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guards uniform individually ask pedestrians to pick up litter and give a coin for the parking meter. findings showed people were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one in the suit, supporting view that situational variables, such as uniform, had a powerful effect on obedience.

-findings are supported in cross-cultural replications. meeus and raajimakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure; they were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of ps obeyed.

obedience: situation variables

evaluation- limitations

smith and bond (1998) identified only 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in india, so not appropriate to conclude that milgrams findings apply to people in all cultures (not cross-cultural + lacks generalisability)

low internal validity: ps may have been aware the procedure was faked orne and holland (1968)

situational explanations

agentic state

milgram proposed obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn’t take responsibility and instead believe they’re acting for someone else; like they’re an agent who feels powerless to disobey.

autonomous state and agentic shift

autonomous state: behave according to own principles + feel a sense of responsibility for own actions.

-agentic shift is the shift from autonomy to agency. milgram (1974) occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure (due to great power from social hierarchy), where a person will defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency.

binding factors

milgram observed that many of his ps wanted to stop but seemed powerless to; he wondered why they remained in the agentic state. binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behavior and reduce their ‘moral strain’.

agentic state

evaluation: strengths

-in milgrams original study, most p’s resisted shocks and asked the experimenter ‘who is responsible if mr wallace is harmed?’, where the experimenter replied ‘i’m responsible’, and the p continued with minimal objections. showing that once the p believed they were not guilty, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent, supporting the role of the agentic state in obedience.

agentic state

evaluation: limitations

-doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience: rank and jacobsons (1977) 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patient, remaining autonomous, suggesting agentic shift can only account for some obedience situations; limited explanation.

legitimacy of authority

-we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have more authority than us; justified by the individuals position of a power within a social hierarchy. (most accept that authority figures are allowed to exercise social power over us to allow society to function smoothly)

-destructive authority: history shows that charismatic and powerful leaders (eg hitler and stalin) used their legitimate powers for tyranny.

legitimacy of authority evaluation

evaluation: strengths

-cultural differences in obedience; kilham and mann (1974) found 16% of australian women went all the way up to 450V in milgrams study replication, but mantell (1971) found german ps were 85%, showing authority in some cultures is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and demanding of obedience, reflecting the way different societies are structured.

legitmacy of authority

evaluation: limitations

-legitimacy can’t be used to explain disobedience in places where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted; eg the nurses in rank and jacobsons study and some p’s in milgrams study who disobeyed despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority. suggesting some people may just be more or less obedient than others.

obedience: dispositional explanation

authoritarian personality

-adorno et al high levels of obedience as a psychological disorder caused by individual personality rather than the situation (dispositional explanation)

authoritarian personality (AP) and obedience

adorno et al. argued people with AP show extreme respect and submissiveness to authority, view society as weaker than it once was, relying on powerful leaders to reinforce traditional values; making them more likely to obey orders from a source of destructive authority.

-show contempt for those of inferior social status, fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world (absolutist thinking + uncomfortable with uncertainty) making ‘others’ a convenient target.

origins of the authoritarian personality

adorno et al believes AP type forms from harsh parenting in childhood; extremely strict, expectation of absolute loyalty and impossibly high standards with severe criticism of failings.

-psychodynamic explanation: this creates resentment and hostility in the child, not expressed directly to the parent as they fear punishment, so they project their fears onto others who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating).

adorno et al (1950) research

procedure

studied <2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups to develop several measurement scales including the F-scale (potential for fascism scale) (‘obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn’, ‘there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude, and respect for his parent’)

adorno et al’s research (1950)

findings

highest F-scale results identified with strong people that were generally contemptuous of the weak, very conscious of status (their own and others) and showed extreme respect, obedience and servility of those with higher status

-had a certain cognitive style; fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups, and found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

obedience: dispositional explanation

evaluation: strengths

-evidence supporting AP; elms and milgram (1966) sample of fully obedient p’s from original study to interview + complete F-scale, scored significantly higher than a comparison group of 20 disobedient ps, supporting adornos view that obedient people show similar characteristics to people with an AP.

counterpoint: researchers found, after analysing the individual subscales, that obedient participants had a number of characteristics unusual for AP; generally didn’t glorify their fathers or experience unusual level of punishment so the link is complex and can’t be perfectly linked.

obedience: dispositional explanation

evaluation: limitations

-can’t explain obedient behaviour for whole populations. eg pre-war germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour, despite their different personalities- they probably identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the jews as a social identity theory approach, therefore the Adorno theory is limited as the alternative view is much more realistic.

-greenstein (1969) calls the F-scale a ‘comedy of the methodological errors’ because it’s a seriously flawed

-F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology. christie and jahoda (1954) argues the F-scale is a politically bias interpretation of AP, meaning Adornos theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum.