situational variables affecting obedience as investigated by milligram

obedience

following direct orders of an authority figure

milgram (1963) aim

to investigate to what extent individuals would obey a legitimate authority figure when instructed to cary out actions that conflicted with their conscience and moral beliefs

milgram (1963) participants

40 male participants

aged 20-50 years old

recruited through a newspaper ad and paid $4

range of occupations (eg. shopkeepers, engineers, postmen)

milgram (1963) procedure - set-up

lab experiment at yale uni

pp told stud investigated effect of punishment on learning

introduced to an experimenter and another pp who was a confederate

rigged draw: pp always assigned role of teacher and confederate always learner

milgram (1963) procedure - learning task

teacher instructed to teach leaner list of word pairs

teacher tested learners memory by asking them to recall correct word pair

if learner gave incorrect answer the teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock

show levels increased by 15V each time (15-450V)

shock generater labelled with increasing levels of severity:

315-360V - ‘extreme intensity shock’

375V - ‘danger: severe shock’

420-450V - ‘XXX’

shocks not real but pp believed they were administering genuine electric shocks

milgram (1963) procedure - learner responses and experimenter prods

learner gave mainly wrong answers and responses with pre-recorded reactions

at 300V: learner banged on wall

after 315V: leaner stopped responding

if pp questioned if they should continue the experimenter used 4 standardised prompts:

1. please continue

2. the experiment requires that you continue

3. it is absolute essential that you continue

4. you have no other choice, you must go on

milgram (1963) procedure - learner responses and experimenter prods

100% of pp went up to 300V

65% (26/40) continue up to max. 450V

despite showing signs of distress (eg. sweating, trembling) many pp still obeyed

milgram (1963) procedure - conclusion

ordinary people are capable of high levels of obedience to legitimate authority figures

individuals may obey commands Naveen when their actions conflict with their own morals

when in an agentic state individuals may transfer responsibility for their actions onto the authority figure

milligram’s study strength & weakness - high internal validity & low ecological validity

controlled extraneous variables using same instructions and standardised prods for all pp

allowed him to conclude obedience caused by presence of legitimate authority figure instead of other factors

situation may have been too artificial - reduces ecological validity

pp asked to administer shocks to a stranger in a lab which is different from real life situations with obedience

provides valid evidence authority can influence behaviour but might not represent obedience in everyday life

milgram’s study strength - real world applications as it helps explain destructive obedience

ordinary people may obey harmful orders as they perceive the authority figure as legitimate

helps explain blind obedience - nazi soldiers in holocaust

individual followed orders from authority figurers which led to persecution and murder of millions of people

milgram’s research has contributed to understanding of how destructive obedience can occur and highlights importance of questioning immoral orders

milgram’s study limitation - raises socially sensitive issues about responsibility for destructive behaviour

argued ordinary people may commit harmful acts when they obey legitimate authority figures instead of them being cruel

may be controversial as it reduces personal responsibility for actions but legal systems expect individuals to be accountable for own behaviour

milgram’s theory helps explain destructive obedience

raises important ethical and social debates both extent of which people should be held responsible for their actions

milgram’s study strength & limitation - ethical concerns & debrief

pp deceived as hey thought they were egis ing real electric shocks

couldn't give fully informed consent

some pp experienced psychological distress during procedure

didn't follow ethical procedure of ‘protection from harm’

milgram debriefed pp after and explained true aim of study

follow up study - 84% of pp reported they were glad to have taken part

suggest experience didn't cause long term psychological harm

milgram breached ethical guidelines but research is valuable du to knowledge gained and limited evidence of lasting negative effects

situational factors affecting obedience

milgram (1963) suggested obedience isn’t only influenced by personality but also by situational factors:

• proximity

• location

• uniform

proximity

obedience decreased as proximity increased

milgram changed: distance between teacher, learner and experimenter

remote authority: experimenter gave instructions via phone - obedience decreased to 21%

same-room proximity: teacher and learner in same room - obedience decreased to 40%

touch proximity: pp had to physically force learner’s hand onto shock plate - obedience decreased to 30%

distance from authority figure reduced obedience - experimenter appeared less powerful and less legitimate

closer proximity to victim reduced obedience - pp felt more personally responsible for hair they caused

location

study moved from Yale uni to a run down office in Bridgeport

obedience decreased form 65% to 47.5%

Yales prestigious reputation increased experimenter’s legitimacy which made pp more likely to obey

uniform

experimenters lab coat replaced with ordinary clothes

obedience decreased to 20%

lab coat was symbol of authority which increased pp’s willingness to obey

effect of uniform on obedience strength - supported by research evidence

Bickman (1974) found members of public were more likely to obey requests from person wearing security guard uniform than if wearing ordinary clothes

suggests uniform acts as a situational factor that indicates level of authority which makes people more likely to obey

supports milgram’s view that external factors can influence obedience

situational explanations of obedience strength - supported by research conducted in real-world settings

Hofling et al. (1966) found nurses obeyed instructions from a doctor over telephone to give drug overdose that went over recommended limit even though doctor said not to do so

suggests situational factors (eg. presence of recognised authority figure and the professional setting) can influence obedience

support view obedience is affected by external features of situation instead of only individual personality

milgram’s situational explanations of obedience - overestimate influence of situational cues

situational factors can increase obedience but don’t explain why some people obey destructive authority figures and other resist

eg. not everyone obeys political leaders/dictators just because they have a position of authority/appear legitimate through symbols (eg. uniform)

suggests obedience is influenced by a combination of situational factors and individual beliefs, values and experiences

milligrams situation explanations may provide an incomplete explanation of large scale obedience