4.1.1 EXPLANATIONS FOR OBEDIENCE Flashcards
what is obedience?
- obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person
- the person who gives the order usually has power or authority
what was Milgram’s initial interest in obedience sparked by?
- Milgram’s initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for inter war crimes during WW2
- Eichmann had been in charge of the Nazi death camps
- his defence: he’d only been ‘obeying others’
what are the two social-psychological explanations?
they concern the influences of others on an individuals behaviour - rather than external factors in the situation
two theories are:
- agentic state
- legitimacy theory
what does Milgram claim obedience occurs due to?
-
the external authority
authority of the authority figure -
the internal authority
authority of our own conscience
when orders come from a figure of authority we can easily deny personal responsibly because it’s assumed they’ll take ultimate responsibility
- when this happens we become ‘agents’ of an external authority
what is the agentic shift?
= when the fully obedient person undergoes a psychological adjustment / shift and they see themselves as an agent of external authority
people have two ways of acting - what are these?
- autonomous state
- agentic state
what is the autonomous state?
individuals direct their own behaviour and take responsibly for the consequences
what is the agentic state?
individuals allow someone else to direct their behaviour, they pass responsibility to them
when do people move from the autonomous state into the agentic state?
they move from autonomous to agentic when confronted with an authority figure
- this shift form autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift
- this allows the individual to take no personal responsibility for the actions
what is moral strain?
if we obey an order that goes against our conscience, we’re likely to experience moral strain
- results when we have to do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority
what are binding factors?
aspects of the situation that allow a person to take away their own ‘moral strain’ and ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour
what is legitimacy of authority?
an explanation for obedience which suggests that we’re more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
- this authority is justified by society (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy
- authority figures need to be allowed to exercise power over others as this allows society to continue to function in an orderly fashion
Milgram looked at the agentic state as an explanation of obedience
- what led him to do this?
- initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trail of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes during WW2
- Eichmann had been in charge of the Nazi death camps
- his defence = he’d only been ‘obeying orders’
what is destructive authority?
when can it be shown?
- history has shown all too often that powerful leaders like Hitler and Stalin, can use their estimate powers for destructive purposes
- destructive authority was shown in Milgram’s study when the experiments uses prods to order ppts to behave in ways that went against their conscience
agentic state AO3 pros
Blass and Schmitt research support
- what’s the method?
- showed a film of Milgram’s study to students
- asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner (Mr Wallace)
agentic state AO3 pros
Blass and Schmitt research support
what are the findings?
- the students indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority
-> experimenter was top of the hierarchy + therefore had legitimate authority - also due to expert authority (he was a scientist)
- recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience
-> supporting this explanation!
cons of agentic state AO3
1) limited explanation
- doesn’t explain many of the research findings
eg) doesn’t explain why some ppts didn’t obey
-> humans are social animals + involved in social hierarchies so should all obey
2) suggests that at best agentic shift can only account for some situs of obedience
3) doesn’t explain findings from Holfing et al’s study
- agentic shift predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety to Milgram’s ppts
- as they understood their role in a destructive process but that wasn’t the case
pro of legitimacy of authority AO3
1) cultural differences
- is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
- many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which ppl are traditionally obedient to authority
eg) Kilham and Mann (1974)
- replicated MIlgram’s procedure in Australia
- found that only 16% of their ppts went all the way to the top of the voltage scale
what was the aim of Milgram’s research?
- to discover why such a high proportion of German people supported Hitler’s regime
- why many of the Nazi party committed atrocities in the name of ‘following orders’
who were the ppts in Milgram’s study and how did he recruit them?
- 40 american men volunteered to take part in Milgram’s study at Yale university
- he recruited them through newspaper ads / flyers in post
- said he was looking for ppts for study on memory
- offered $4.50 to take part
what was the method of Milgram’s study?
- when each ppt arrived to take part they were introduced to another ppt (who was a confederate to Milgram)
- the 2 ppts drew lots to see who would be the ‘teacher’ and who would be the ‘learner’
- the draw was fixed so the genuine ppt was always the teacher + the confederate the learner
- an experimenter was also involved who was also a confederate + was dressed in a grey lab coat
- one ppt (confederate) was asked to learn a set of word pairs + the teacher would test knowledge of this
- placed in adjacent rooms + the teacher was positioned in front of a set of controls to administer electric shocks to the learner
- teacher was told to punish learner w a shock after wrong answer
what was the teacher told to do to the learner?
what were they aware of?
what was Milgram testing?
what happened if they were reluctant?
- instructed to punish the learner w a shock after each wrong answer he gave
- they were unaware their compliance wouldn’t result in an actual shock to the confederate, who has to enact responses to the punishments
- tested ppts willingness to obey by instructing the experimenters to administer higher shocks
- when the teacher displayed reluctance to injure the learner, they were encouraged to continue the procedure
what does experimental / internal validity mean?
- ppts should behave as they would normally do in that situation
- experiment should measure obedience in general
what is some evidence for (pros) experimental / internal validity in Milgram’s study?
AO3
- ppts must have believed the task, willing to be given strong shocks
- Rosehan (1969) found almost 70% of ppts believed the set-up
- Milgram said the experiments follow similar rules to social situations so are true to life
- Milgram informed ppts they could leave + would still be paid
what is some evidence for (cons) experimental / internal validity in Milgram’s study?
AO3
- ppts were paid to take part
- some say payment for participation means that the ppts are entering a ‘contract’
- Milgram’s findings are evidence of obedience in a contract rather than obedience in general
how does Milgram’s study relate to ecological validity?
- Milgram’s original study in a laboratory setting
- questioned whether the findings can be generalised to real-life
BUT
- Milgram (1974) did variations of the study in other settings
- ppts thought that the experiment was real, so we can argue that it’s ecologically valid
- it can be said to hold ecological validity as cross-cultural studies produce the same findings
a strength of Milgram’s research is that his findings have been replicated in studies with other cultures (cross-cultural replication)
elaborate..
-
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1968)
-> studied obedience in Dutch ppts
-> they were instructed to say stressful things in an interview to someone who was desperate for a job
(and who was a confederate)
-> 90% obeyed
BUT
-
Smith and Bond (1998)
-> showed that replications of Milgram’s research weren’t very multi-cultural
-> were only able to find 2 replications that were conducted in non-western cultures
what are some ethical issues in Milgram’s study?
ppts were deceived in multiple way
- ppts thought the allocation of roles of both Teacher and Learner was random but they weren’t as Milgram’s confederate was always the learner
- ppts believed the electric shocks were real
- Milgram debriefed the ppts afterward to ensure they understood the real intentions of the experiment
how does Bickman’s study support Milgram’s conclusion about uniform?
- in NYC, Bickman had 3 confederates dress in 2 different outfits
1) jacket and tie
2) a milkman outfit
3) security guard uniform
- the confederates stood in the street and asked ppts to perform tasks like picking up litter / giving the confederate a coin for parking
- ppl were twice as likely to obey the confederate in the security uniform than the jacket and tie
- supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform conveys the authority of the wearer + affects obedience
why did Milgram’s do variations of his study?
- to discover if features of the situation would make obedience more or less likely
- so he investigated SITUATIONAL VARIABLES
what are the three situations variables that Milgram investigated?
1) proximity
2) location
3) uniform
how did Milgram change the proximity of the study?
1) in his original procedure, the Teacher could hear the Learner but couldn’t see him
- in the proximity variation, both were moved to the same room
- obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
2) touch proximity variation, teacher had to force the learners hand onto the electroshock plate
- obedience rate dropped further to 30%
3) remote instruction variation, experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone
- obedience rate dropped to 20.5%
how did Milgram change the location variable of his study?
- he conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than Yale University
- assuming this gave the experimenter less authority
- obedience fell to 47.5%
how did Milgram change the uniform variable in his study?
- the experimenter was called away and replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate)
-> so they weren’t wearing the uniform of a grey lab coat - obedience rate dropped to the lowest of all variations to 20%
why is the control a strength of Milgram’s study?
- he systemically changed one variable at a time in each variation to see the effect it would have on obedience
- thus highly controlled + each time all of the other variables were kept the same
- this means the procedure was repeated with over 1000 ppts total
(large sample size)
