Obedience

who did a key study on obedience and in what year?

• Milgram

• 1963

what was Milgram’s procedure?

• 40 participants.

• Told it was a study to test effects of punishment on learning.

• 2 confederates: an experimenter and a 47 year old man who was the 'learner'.

• Teacher had to ask questions to the learner and every time they got one wrong the teacher gave them increasingly large electric shocks, starting at 15 volts and getting to 450 volts in 15 volt increments.

• The learner mainly gave wrong answers and received his 'fake' shocks.

• After 300 and 315V shock the 'learner' pounded on the walls and screamed then remained silent on the remaining questions. 

• If the 'teacher' asked to stop at any point the experimenter insisting they 'must go on'.

• 'Teachers' were stressed anxious and wanting to stop, 3 even had full seizures from stress.

what were Milgram’s findings?

• Before study Milgram asked people to predict how long participants would go before refusing.

• Majority predicted that many few would go past 150V and only 1 in 1000 would administer the full 450V.

• However, in reality 26 of 40 (65%) continued to maximum shock level.

what happened after Milgram carried out his procedure?

• Had a debrief afterwards.

• Behaviour was assured it normal.

• Sent a follow up questionnaire and 84% said they were glad they participated.

• Milgram concluded German people are not different.
  

what was Milgram’s aim?

To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an authority figure, even when the instructions conflicted with their personal conscience.

what were Milgram’s 5 variations?

• location

• proximity 1

• proximity 2

• proximity 3

• uniform

how did the location variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Went from Yale to a rundown office block.

• Decrease to 48% obedience to 450 V.

• Legitimacy was lower which explains the decrease in obedience but it is still high as it is still a scientific study they have consented to.

how did the proximity 1 variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Teacher and learner in same room.

• Decrease to 40% obedience at 450 V.

• Its more personal and they can see the effects.

how did the proximity 2 variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Teacher forces learners hand onto the shock plate.

• Decrease to 30% obedience at 450V.

• Even less psychological distance from effect of actions.

how did the proximity 3 variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Experimenter was out the room and gave instructions via telephone.

• Decrease to 20.5% obedience at 450 V.

• Participants pretended to give shocks, or pretended to increase volts but actually stayed on lower voltage.

• Much easier to resist obedience if there is distance between authority figure and individual.

how did the uniform variable change Milgram’s study, what was found and what was the explanation for this?

• Experimenter called away and replaced by 'member of public'.

• Decrease to 20% obedience at 450 V.

• Looked less official. Uniform is a recognised symbol of authority – legitimacy reduced with ordinary clothes.

what is one strength (research support) of Milgram’s study?

• it has been replicated many times (high external validity)

• another researcher used 'Obedience Lite' approach to avoid ethical issues in Milgram's procedure.

• After participant reached 150 volt level, the data collection ended.

• Anyone who reached this point was classes as fully obedient as Milgram found 79% of participants who went beyond 150V continued to the end.

what are some alternative explanations to Milgram’s experiment?

• Blind obedience may not be justified.

• When participants were given the prompt 'You have no choice you must go on.' every participant stopped and disobeyed. 

• When other participants were given the prompt 'the experiment requires you to continue', they continued.

• This shows social identity theory.

• This shows identifying with science is a reason for obedience.

what is other research supporting what Milgram found in his uniform variation?

• Field experiment conducted in New York City

• Had 3 confederates dressed in different outfits – jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guards uniform.

• Confederates individually stood on the street and asked by passers to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for a parking meter.

• People were twice as likely to obey the security guard then the one in a jacket and tie.

• Supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.

what were the cross cultural replications of Milgram’s study and what did they find?

• Milgram's findings have been replicated in different cultures.

• For example another set of researchers did a test on obedience (more realistic) on Dutch participants (women and men)

• Participants were ordered to say stressful things at an interviewee (a confederate) desperate for a job.

• They found 90% of participants obeyed.

• Researchers also tested effects of proximity.

• When person giving orders wasn’t present, obedience decreased.

• Proves Milgram's findings weren't just limited to American men.

what is a social hierarchy and how does this effect authority?

• societies are structured in a hierarchal way

• people in higher positions in the hierarchy have authority over those above below them

• this authority is legitimate because it is agreed by society

• it allows society to function effectively

what is legitimacy of authority?

• an individuals authority is justified by the position they have in the social hierarchy

• legitimate = real or justified

what is the agentic state?

• a mental state where we feel no responsibility for our own state - we believe we are agents of the authority figure e.g. acting on their behalf, obeying destructive authority

what is the autonomous state?

a mental state where we are free to behave as we choose, according to our own principles - we feel responsible for our own actions

when does the agentic shift happen?

cognitive shift from autonomous to agentic state occurs when given an order by someone higher in the social hierarchy e.g. someone with legitimate authority

what are binding factors?

aspects of social situations that make disobedience difficult or aspects that allow one to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour e.g. factors which keep people in the agentic state

what is some research to support the agentic shift as an explanation for obedience? (PET)

P- research support from Milgram’s own studies

E- most commonly asked q in study was ‘who takes responsibility?’ as soon as experimenter took responsibility the P’s continued quickly

T- therefore, as no longer felt responsible they obeyed. Suggests that obedience occurred when P’s had undergone agentic shift.

what is an evaluation point against the agentic shift as an explanation for obedience? (PET)

P- agentic state cannot explain the diff in obedience across the variations

E- in all variations relating to proximity and location orders were given by legit authority. Therefore, agentic state explanation means that P’s shld shift to agentic state in all conditions and obedience should be the same

T- this suggests that other characteristics of the situation also affect and explain obedience - agentic state and legit authority are not a full explanation

what is a dispositional explanation?

suggests a behaviour is due to internal traits such as personality, rather than situational/external factors

what is an authoritarian personality?

a personality type defined by Adorno as being especially susceptible to obeying authority.

what type of explanation is authoritarian personality (important)?

a dispositional explanation

what are some characteristics of someone with an authoritarian personality?

• extreme respect for authority - susceptible to obeying those in authority

• inflexible outlook (black and white)

• harsh/hostile and dismissive towards people perceived as having a lower status than themselves (social hierarchy)

what are the origins of authoritarian personality? (how is it caused)

• developed due to harsh parenting: strict/rigid discipline, expectations of extreme loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe critisisms of failing

• conditional love in childhood

how does harsh parenting cause authoritarian personality?

• creates resentment and hostility in child

• child cant express this to parents

• child uses scapegoating and so displaces resentment onto inferiors

what research is there into the authoritarian personality?

• 2000 middle class white Americans - unconscious attitudes to racial groups

• used the F scale (fascist scale) - questionnaire ^agree or disagree with the statements

• found high scores on the f scale linked with: identification with the string, contempt towards the weak, deference and servility to those of higher status and black & white thinking

what is an evaluation point supporting the authoritarian personality and one that links not supporting it?

P- research support from Milgram and Elms in 1966

E- interviewed P’s from M’s original study

compared F scale score for fully obedient vs disobedient

sig diff - fully obedient score sig higher

also found obedient reported = less close to fathers

T - demonstrates link between AP and obedience

• However, further investigation revealed that many fully obedient participants did have a good relationship with their parents.

• contrary to the harsh parenting associated with the authoritarian personality.

• implausible that the high number of obedient participants in Milgram's study all had poor relationships and harboured resentment.

• suggests there are important differences between authoritarianism and proneness to obedience which needs to be considered.

what is another evaluation point against the authoritarian personality being an explanation for obedience?

P- could be argued that AP is a deterministic approach to explain obedience

E- AP explanation of obedience suggests all children who have harsh parents and use defence mechanisms will become highly obedient (to the point of obeying malevolent authority -e.g. holocaust)

also does not fit with our perception of free will and control over our destinies

T- problem as it suggests AP is intergenerational cycle of obedience and cannot be broken, which we know is not true in all cases