Milgram (1963) Studied Obedience (Obedience to authority):

Method:

• Milgram conducted several laboratory experiments to test factors thought to affect obedience

• This condition tested whether people would obey orders to shock someone in a separate room

• It took place at the prestigious Yale University

• 40 men participated, responding to newspaper adverts seeking volunteers for a study on "learning and memory”

• They received payment for attending, which didn't depend on them proceeding with the experiment

• The experimenter wore a grey technician's coat. Each participant was introduced to a confederate (acting like a participant, but who was part of the experimental set-up)

• They drew lots to see who would act as 'teacher' and "learner', but this was fixed so the participant was always the teacher

• The participant witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair and connected to a shock generator in the next room

• It didn't give electric shocks, but the participants thought it was real

• The switches ranged from 15 volts (labelled "Slight Shock') to 450 volts (labelled " XXX'). The participant taught the learner word pairs over an intercom

• When the learner answered incorrectly, the participant had to administer an increasing level of shock

• After the 300 V shock, the learner pounded on the wall and made no further responses

• If participants hesitated during the process, the experimenter told them to continue

• Debriefing included an interview, questionnaires and being reunited with the 'learner'

Results:

• 26 participants (65%) were administered 450 V and none stopped before administering 300 V (when the learner banged on the wall)

• Most participants showed obvious signs of stress like sweating, groaning and trembling

Conclusion:

• Ordinary people will obey orders to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience

Milgram's Experiment had Good and Bad Points:

• Internal Validity: It's possible that participants didn't believe they were inflicting electric shocks — they were going along with the experimenter's expectations (showing demand characteristics). But Milgram claimed participants' stressed reactions showed they believed the experiment was real

• Ecological Validity: Milgram's participants did a task they were unlikely to encounter in real life (shocking someone). So the study lacks ecological validity. However, because it was a laboratory experiment there was good control of the variables, so it's possible to establish cause and effect

• The participants were deceived as to the true nature of the study. This means they couldn't give informed consent. They weren't informed of their right to withdraw from the experiment. They were prompted to continue when they wanted to stop. The participants showed signs of stress during the experiment, so they weren't protected. However, they were extensively debriefed and 84% of them said they were pleased to have taken part. As well as this, at the time of the experiment there weren't any formal ethical guidelines in place, so technically Milgram didn't breach any

Milgram Identified Situational Factors that Affected Obedience:

Milgram carried out his experiment in loads of slightly different ways to investigate the effect that certain conditions would have on the results

1. Presence of allies: When there were 3 teachers (1 participant and 2 confederates), the real participant was less likely to obey if the other two refused to obey. Having allies can make it easier to resist orders

2. Proximity of the victim: Milgram's results suggest an important factor was the proximity (closeness) of the learner. In the condition described above, 65% gave the maximum shock. This dropped to 40% with the learner in the same room, and 30% when the participant had to put the learner's hand onto the shock plate. Proximity made the learner's suffering harder to ignore.

3. The proximity of the authority: When the authority figure gave prompts by phone from another room, obedience rates dropped to 23%. When the authority figure wasn't close by, orders were easier to resist

4. Location of the experiment: When the participants were told a private company was running the study, and the experiment was moved to a set of run-down offices in a nearby town, the proportion of people giving the maximum shock fell to 48%. When his association with a prestigious university (Yale) was removed, the authority of the experimenter seemed less legitimate, so the participants were more likely to question it

Milgram’s Agency Theory (1973) explains Obedience:

1. When people behave on behalf of an external authority (do as they’re told), they’re said to be in an agentic state. This means they act as someone’s agent, rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions

2. The opposite of this is behaving autonomously- not following orders

3. Milgram’s agency theory states that when we feel we’re out of the wishes of another person (being their agent), we feel less responsible for our actions

4. This effect is seen in Milgram’s studies. Some participants were concerned for the welfare of the learner and asked who would take responsibility if the learner was harmed. When the experimenter (authority) took responsibility, often the participant would continue

5. This agentic state was also encouraged by the experiment’s setup. The participants voluntarily entered a social contract (an obligation) with the experimenter to take part and follow the procedure of the study

6. People can start off acting in an autonomous way (thinking for themselves), but then become obedient. This is known as an agentic shift. When Milgram’s participants arrived for the experiment they were in an autonomous state, but as soon as they started following orders they underwent an agentic shift and entered an agentic state

7. Milgram claimed that there were some binding factors that might have kept his participants in the agentic shift:

   • Reluctance to disrupt the experiment- participants had already been paid, so they may have felt obliged to continue

   • The pressure of the surroundings- The experiment took place in a prestigious university. This made the experimenter seem like a legitimate authority

   • The instance of the authority figure- if participants hesitated they were told that they had to continue the experiment

Milgram’s Agency Theory is supported by his results:

Before his studies, Milgram believed that people were autonomous and could choose to resist authority. His agency theory shows Milgram’s findings changed his mind about how much impact authority figures have

Evaluation of Agency Theory:

1. There’s lots of experimental evidence to support agency theory- Milgram’s participants often claimed they wouldn’t have gone as far by themselves, but they were just following orders

2. Sometimes people resist the pressure to obey authority. This can be because of the situation, or because of individual differences. Agency theory doesn’t explain why some people are more likely to exhibit independent behaviour (i.e resist pressure to conform or obey) than others

Obedience can depend on the Legitimacy of the Authority:

1. We’re socialised to recognise the authority of people like parents, police officers, doctors, teachers, etc

2. These kinds of people are legitimate authorities- they’re given the right to tell us what to do. This means we’re more likely to obey them

3. Legitimate authority comes with legal power

4. When Milgram re-ran his study in some run-down offices, obedience rates were lower than when the study was run in the university

5. He argued that the experimenter’s authority was higher in the university situation because of the status of the university

6. Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment where researchers ordered passers-by to do something like pick up some litter. They were dressed either in a guard’s uniform, as a milkman, or just in smart clothes. People were much more likely to obey the person in a guard’s uniform. This was because he seemed to be the most legitimate authority figure

The Authoritarian Personality can also explain Obedience:

1. Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality is a dispositional (personality) explanation of obedience

2. Adorno et al (1950) proposed that over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly because they learn strict obedience to their parents

3. Adorno expanded on his idea to argue that strict parenting also resulted in prejudice:

   • Strict parenting means the child feels constrained, which creates aggression

   • But the child is afraid they’ll be disciplined if they express this aggression towards their parents, so instead they’re hostile to people they see as weak or inferior to them- usually minority groups

4. Adorno et al defined the collection of traits that they thought resulted from over-strict parenting as the authoritarian personality. As well as aggression to people of perceived lower status, and blind obedience, the identifying traits included being conformist and having rigid moral standards

The F-scale:

*The ‘F’ stands for fascism

• Adorno et al (1950) developed a scale to measure how strongly people express authoritarian traits, called the F-scale

• This research began shortly after the end of the Second World War- Adorno’s team were trying to find out if there were characteristics of individuals which could explain the persecution of Jews and other minority groups by the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s

Evaluation of Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory:

1. Elms and Milgram (1966) found that participants who scored higher on the F-scale (so had more authoritarian traits) were willing to administer bigger shocks in Milgram’s experiment

2. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that a strict upbringing or having authoritarian traits causes people to be obedient- other factors such as education could cause both authoritarian traits and obedience

3. Also, Milgram found that situational factors like proximity and location had a bigger effect on obedience

4. The theory also doesn’t explain how whole societies can become obedient- not everybody has this personality type