1.2 Obedience Flashcards
1
Q
What is obedience?
A
The change of an individuals behaviour to comply with a demand by an authority figure
1
Q
Describe Milgrams baseline study (1963)
A
- 40 American men volunteered to take part
- The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and confederate was the learner
- The ‘learner’ was strapped to a chair with electrodes
- The learner had to remember a list of words, each time he made an error the teacher was told to administer a shock
- The level of the shock increased each time from 15 to 450 volts
- If the teacher refused, the experimenter was to give a series of prods to ensure they continued
2
Q
What was the aim of Milgrams study?
A
To observe how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person
3
Q
What were the findings of Milgrams study?
A
- Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
- 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts (they were fully obedient)
- The participants showed signs of ‘extreme tension’, many seen to ‘sweat, tremble, stutter’
4
Q
What was the other data from Milgrams study?
A
- Before the study, 14 students asked to predict behaviour, estimated that no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts
- 84% participants said were glad to have participated in follow-up questionnaire
5
Q
A03 for Milgrams study
A
- Research support: findings replicated in a French documentary, Beauvois et al (2012) the particpants were paid to give fake shocks to other particpants infront of an audience, 80% delivered maximum shock of 460 volts, behaviour identical to Milgram, demonstrates findings were not due to special circumstances
- Low internal validity: Milgram reported that 75% believed shocks were genuine, Orne and Holland (1968) participants were ‘play-acting’ because they did not believe in set up, Perry (2013) listened to tapes and reported only half believed shocks were real, 2/3 of them were disobedient, demand characteristics
- Alternative interpretation of findings: Participants obeyed when first three verbal prods delievered, however after fourth prod all disobeyed, social idenitity theory-participants only obeyed when identified with scientific aims of research, when told to blindly obey an authority they refused, SIT more valid interpretation
6
Q
What are situational variables?
A
Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour
7
Q
Describe how proximity was assessed by Milgram
A
- Proximity: when teacher and learner were moved to the same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
(touch proximity-teacher forced learners hand on electroshock plate if given wrong answer, obedience dropped to 30%)
(remote instruction-experimenter gave teacher instructions via telephone, obedience dropped to 20.5%)
8
Q
What were the 3 situational variables Milgram assessed?
A
- Proximity
- Location
- Uniform
9
Q
What is the explanation for Milgrams findings on proximity?
A
- Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequence of their actions (e.g when teacher and learner separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing so more obedient)
10
Q
Describe how location was assessed by Milgram
A
- Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than prestigious Yale university setting, obedience fell to 47.5%
11
Q
What is the explanation for Milgrams findings on location?
A
- The prestigious university setting gave study legitimacy and authority, participants more obedient in this location as they believed experimenter shared this legitimacy
12
Q
Describe how uniform was assessed by Milgram
A
When the role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of public’ in ordinary clothes rather than lab coat, obedience fell to 20%
13
Q
What is the explanation for Milgrams findings on uniform?
A
- Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority
14
Q
What are 2 situational explanations?
A
- Agentic state
- Legitimacy of authority
15
Q
What is agentic state?
A
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe we are acting for an authority figure
16
Q
What is autonomous state?
A
A mental state where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions
17
Q
What are binding factors?
A
Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
18
Q
What is legitimacy of authority?
A
- Suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us due to their position within a social hierarchy
- These authority figures are granted the power to punish others
19
Q
What is destructive authority?
A
When a legitimate authority uses their legitimate powers for destructive purposes
20
Q
What were 2 binding factor strategies that Milgram proposed?
A
- Shifting the responsibility to the victim
- Denying the damage they were doing to others
21
Q
What is agentic shift and why did Milgram suggest it occurs?
A
- The shift from autonomy to agency
- Milgram suggested that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
22
Q
One strength and limitation of agentic state
A
- Research support: during Milgrams own study, most of the participants resisted giving shocks at some point and often asked questions about procedure, when experimenter claimed responsiblity participants continued quickly with no objections, once participants perceived no longer responsible they acted more easily as experimenters agent
- Limited explanation: does not explain Rank and Jacobsons (1977) study, found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patient although obvious authority, nurses remained autonomous
23
Q
One strength and limitation of legitimacy of authority
A
- Explains cultural differences: Kilham and Mann (1974) only 16% of Australian women went up to 450 volts in Milgram style study, however Mantell (1971) found a different figure for German participants of 85%, in some cultures authority more accepted as legitimate, reflects the way societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
- Cannot explain all obedience: cannot explain disobedience when authority is clear and accepted e.g Rank and Jacobsons nurses, also a number of Milgrams participants disobeyed despite experimenters scientific authority, suggest some may just be more/less obedient than others, innate tendencies may have greater influence on behaviour than legitimacy of authority
24
What are dispositional explanations?
Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individuals personality
25
What is authoritarian personality?
A type of personality that is especially susceptible to obeying people of authority, they show an extreme respect and submissiveness to authority
26
Describe the characteristics of authoritarian personality
- Show contempt for those of inferior social status
- Inflexible outlook on world
- Uncomfortable with uncertainty
27
What did Adorno propose are the origins of authoritarian personality?
- Forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting
- High standards, severe criticisms of perceived failings, conditional love
- This creates resentment and hostility in child which they displace onto others they perceive as weaker (scapegoating)
28
Describe the procedure of Adorno et als research
- Studied 2000 middle-class white men and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
- Developed several measurement scales including F-scale (to measure authoritarian personality)
- Respondents indicate agreement/disagreement to a series of statements on a scale
29
What are 2 examples of items on the F-scale?
- 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn'
- 'Nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffering'
30
What were the findings of Adorno et als research?
- People with authoritarian leanings (scored highly on the F-scale' identified as 'strong' and were contempt of 'weak'
- They were very conscious of their status, showed extreme respect to those higher
- They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
31
AO3 for authoritarian personality
**1. Research support:** Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed sample of fully obedient participants from original study, all completed F-scale, 20 obedient scored higher overall than 20 disobedient, shows that obedient people share similar characteristics to those with authoritarian personality
**2. Limited explanation:** in pre-war Germany millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-semitic behaviour, all differed in their personalities so extremely unlikely all possessed authoritarian personality, authoritarianism cannot explain obedience in a large population, however may be social identity theory (majority of Germans identified with the anti-semitic Nazi state)
**3. Political bias:** F-scale only measures tendency to extreme right-wing ideology, Christie and Jahoda (1954) stated F-scale is a polically biased interpretation, Adornos theory is not comprehensive explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across political spectrum
**4. Flawed evidence**
32
Two strengths of situational variables
**Research support:** Bickman (1974) NYC field experiment, three confederates dressed in different outfits, confederates stood in the street and asked passers to perform tasks e.g picking up litter, people twice as likely to obey confederate dressed as security guard rather than in jacket and tie, proves that uniform has an effect on obedience
**Cross cultural replications:** Meeus and Raaijmakers, used realistic procedure with Dutch participants, ordered to say stressful things to confederate desperate for a job in an interview, 90% obeyed, also replicated proximity variation, when person given orders not present obedience decreased, obedience findings valid across cultures and genders
33
One limitation of situational variables (Asch)
- **Low internal validity:** Orne and Holland (1968) stated participants aware procedure was fake, even more likely in her variations due to the extra manipulation of variables e.g when experimenter replaced with member of public, situation was so contrived that some may have figured the truth, therefore unclear whether findings due to obedience or play acting/demand characterisitics
