obedience☑️

situational varibales, dispositonal explanation

milgrams obedience research

aim and baseline procedures

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

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

baseline procedure

-L was strapped to a chair and wired up with electrodes. L’s task was to remember paired words. T delivered increasingly stronger shocks, labelled ‘slight shock’ to ‘intense shock’ to ‘danger- severe shock’ with each answer L got wrong. at 300v, the learner pounded the wall + gave no response for the rest, aside from another pound on the wall

40 male american volunteers aged (20-50) were 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 naive participant was the teacher. an experimenter was present and dressed in a grey lab coat.

milhgrams obedience experiment findings

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

qualitative data and observations were also collected; seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips and groan, where three had ‘uncontrollable seizures’

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

conclusion: milgram concluded german people aren’t different as americans were willing to obey orders even when theres risk of harming another

stanley milgrams obedience research

evaluation - strengths

-milgrams findings were replicated in a french documentary. the participants on the show believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show. they were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants (confederates). 80% delivered the maximum shock (460v) to an apparently unconscious man. their behaviour was also identical to milgrams participants; nervous biting + laughter thus supporting the original findings about obedience to authority - high external validity

-charles sheridan + richard king (1972) conducted a similar study. student participants fave real shocks to puppies in response to orders or an experminyer. 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: milgrams procedure may not have been testing what he intended it to. 75% if participants were reported to believe the shocks were genuine. however martin orne and charles holland (1968) argued participants didn’t believe enough in the setup (play-acting). gina perrys (2013) research confirms this when listening to tapes of the procedure as 2/3 disobeyed, suggesting participants may have responded to demand characteristic, trying to fulfill the aims of the study.

-alternative findings interpretation: milgrams conclusion about blind obedience may not be justified. alex haslam et al. (2014) shows milgrams participants obeyed the experimenter delivered the first 3 prods. every participant given the 4th prod disobeyed. according to social identity theory (SIT), participants in milgrams study 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

-stanley suspected there were factors that encourage obedience, so he conducted studies to investigate them. the situational variables are:

• proximity

• location

• uinform

situational variables

proximity

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

in the touch proximity, where 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%

in the remote instruction, where experimenter left the room and gave instructions to T by telephone, obedience fell to 20.5%. the participants also pretended frequently to give shocks.

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

situational variables

location

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

-the prestigious university environment gave milgrams study legitimacy and authority. however obedience in office block because the participants perceived the scientific nature of the procedure.

situational variables

uniform

in one variation, the experimenter was called away on an inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure and was 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

-other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience. in a field experiment leonard bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in either a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guards uniform. the confederates individually stood in the street and asked pedestrians to performs tasks like picking up litter and handing over 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.

-his findings are supported in cross-cultural replications. wim meeus and quintin 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 participants obeyed. situational variables were also tested with proximity where obedience decreased dramatically.

obedience: situation variables

evaluation- limitations

-replications of milgrams research aren’t very cross cultural. peter smith and michael bond (1998) identified only 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in india and jordan it may not be appropriate to conclude that milgrams findings apply to people in all cultures (lacks generalisability)

-low internal validity: participants may have been aware the procedure was faked. martin orne and charles holland (1968) made criticism of milgrams baseline study as obedience was more likely due to the extra manipulation of variables

situational explanations

agentic state, autonomous sate and agentic shift

-milgrams initial interest spawned from the trial of adolf eichmann in 1961 for war crimes. he’d been in charge of the nazi death camps and his defence was he was only obeying orders - leading milgram to propose obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn’t take responsibility but instead believe they’re acting for someone else; like they’re an agent who feels powerless to disobey.

autonomous state

the opposite of being in an agentic state, where u behave according to ur own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for ur own actions.

-shift from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift. milgram (1974) suggested this 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.

autonomous state and agentic shift

autonomous state: the opposite of being in an agentic state, where u behave according to ur own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for ur own actions.

-shift from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift. milgram (1974) suggested this 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

binding factors- milgram observed that many of his participants wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do and 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 the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling.

agentic state

evaluation: strengths

-milgrams own study supports the role of agentic state in obedience; most of milgrams participants resisted shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter ‘who is responsible if mr wallace is harmed?’, where the experimenter replied ‘i’m responsible’, and the participant continued the procedure with minimal questions or objections. showing that once the participants believed they were no longer guilty, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent.

agentic state

evaluation: limitations

-it’s a limited explanation (doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience); doesn’t explain steven rank and cardell jacobson’s (1977) findings where they found 16/18 nurses disobeys orders from a doctor to administer excessive drug dose to a patient, remaining autonomous, suggesting that agentic shift can only account for some obedience situations.

legitimacy of authority

-an explanation for obedience that suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have more authority over us. this authority is justified by the individual position of a power within a social hierarchy. (most people accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly)

-destructive authority: history shows that charismatic and powerful leaders (eg hitler and stalin) used their legitimate powers in cruel or dangerous ways (obvious in milgrams study).

legitimacy of authority evaluation

evaluation: strengths

-a useful account of cultural differences in obedience; many studies show that countries differ in degree of obedience to authority (wesley kilham and leon mann (1974) found 16% of australian women went all the way up to 450V in milgrams study replication, but david mantell (1971) found german participants 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 and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

legitmacy of authority

evaluation: limitations

-instances where legitimacy can’t be used to explain all disobedience, even in places where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted; eg the nurses in rank and jacobsons study and some participants 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

-suggested by theodor adorno et al - due to curiosity about anti-semitism during the holocaust- who believed high levels of obedience was a psychological disorder caused by the personality of the personal rather than the situation (dispositional explanation)

authoritarian personality (AP) and obedience

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

-people with AP also show contempt for those with inferior social status, fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world (no grey areas/ absolutist thinking + uncomfortable with uncertainty) making ‘others’ a convenient target, and making them easier to obey destructive authority.

origins of the authoritarian personality

adorno et al believes AP type forms from childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting; extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty and impossibly high standards and severe criticism of failings.

- he argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, but they don’t express the feelings directly to the parent as they fear punishment so they project their fears onto others who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating): psychodynamic explanation.

adorno et al (1950) research

procedure

-studies <2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups and developed 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’ and ‘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

findings: people scoring highest F-scale results identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak. they were very conscious of status (their own and others) and showed extreme respect, deference and servility of those with higher status (the traits of basic obedience)

-also found they 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 from milgram supporting AP; elms and milgram (1966) interviewed a small sample of people who had been fully obedient in the original study, and they all completed the F-scale and other measures, and scored significantly higher than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants. these findings support adornos view that obedient people show similar characteristics to people who have an AP.

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

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

obedience: dispositional explanation

evaluation: limitations

-can’t explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country’s population. eg pre-war germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour, despite the fact that they must have differed personalities- an alternative view is that 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.

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