AS SOCIAL INFLUENCE - OBEDIENCE Flashcards
Describe the aim of Milgram’s research
Milgram sought to find out why so many German people obeyed authority in the Second World War and killed over 10 million Jews, Gypsies and other groups. he wanted to find out whether the German people were genuinely just more obedient, or whether there were other factors involved.
Describe the setup of Milgram’s research
Recruited 40 male ppts between 20 and 50 yrs old in jobs ranging form unskilled to professional via postal flyers and newspaper ads, and offered $4.50 just for showing up. Done at Yale University.
Ppts drew fake lots so that the confederate (“Mr Wallace”) was always the learner and the ppt was always the teacher. Another confederate played the role of experimenter and wore a lab coat. Ppts were told they could leave at any time.
Describe the procedure of Milgram’s research
The learner was strapped to a chair in another room and wired with electrodes. The teacher was told that they must administer an electric shock to the learner every time they got a question wrong.
“Shocks” started at 15V and rose through 30 levels to get to 450V (labelled “danger - severe shock”). At 300V, the learner would pound on the wall and give no response. After the 315V shock, the learner pounded on the wall again but made no further responses after this (the experimenter would tell the ppt “An absence of response should be treated as an wrong answer”). If ppt felt unsure about continuing, the exp.er would use one of four set prods: 1) “Please continue”/”Please go on”.2) “The experiment requires that you continue”. 3) “It is absolutely essential that you continue”. 4) “You have no other choice, you must go on”.
Describe Milgram’s findings
- 0 ppts stopped under 300V
- 12.5% stopped at 300V
- 65% continued to 450V
- Observations showed that ppts were extremely anxious; sweating, trembling, biting their lips, groaning, digging fingernails into their hands. 3 ppts had “full-blown, uncontrollable seizures”.
- Before the exp. Milgram asked students how many they thought would continue to 450V and they estimated 3%; unexpected results.
- Ppts were debriefed at the end of the study and assured their behaviour was normal. 84% said they were glad to have participated and 74% said they learned something of personal value.
Evaluate Milgram’s research
(-) Orne and Holland (1968) said ppts guessed shcoks were fake
(+) However Sheridan and King (1972) found that 54% of men and 100% of women administered real electric shocks to a puppy.
(+) Hofling et al (1966) found that 21/22 nurses carried out unjustified demands of a “doctor” over the phone; findings and conclusion of Milgram’s research works in real life too i.e. good external validity
(-) Severe ethical problems; 3 ppts had “full-blown, uncontrollable seizures”, ie failure to protect from psychological harm
=> Baumrind (1964) said that these ethical problems reduce the trust in psychologists, and put ppts off volunteering again.
Describe situational variables affecting obedience
- Proximity; teacher and learner put in same room, obedience fell from 65% to 40%. When teacher had to force learner’s hand onto shock plate, obedience fell to 30%, and when exp.er left the room and gave instructions over the phone, obedience fell to 20.5%.
- Location; when exp done in a run-down building instead of Yale Uni, obedience fell to 47.5%, indicating that the exp.er had less authority when not in a prestigious setting.
- Uniform; when exp.er (who wore a lab coat) was called away and replaced by a normal member of the public, obedience fell all the way to just 20%; shows that uniform has an especially powerful effect on obedience.
Evaluate situational variables affecting obedience
(+) Bickman (1974) found that when a confederate (dressed as either a milkman, security guard or in a suit and tie) asked people on the street to pick up litter, obedience was much higher with the security guard uniform; supports Milgram’s findings
(+) MIlgram had good control over variables as he only changed one thing at a time; inc validity
(+) Miranda et al (1981) found over 90% obedience in Spanish students, ie Milgram’s findings are cross cultral
(-) Smith and Bond (1998) say that most of this cross cultral evidence is in other western countries so culture isn’t that different to USA so can’t generalise to absolutely everyone
(-) Orne and Holland (1968) say that ppts were even more likely to guess that the shocks were fake in these variations, with even Milgram himself saying in some cases the ppts may have worked it out for themselves; low validity as may have just been play acting
Describe the agentic state as a social-psychological factor affecting obedience
Agentic state is when someone feels they are acting on behalf of someone else (ie acting as an agent). They feel guilt/anxiety (called moral strain) when they know what they’re doing is wrong but feel powerless to stop it. They don’t feel that they are responsible for what they have done; stemmed from the trial of Adolf Eichmann who was in charge of the Nazi death camps and said he was only following orders.
When in the autonomous state, we are behaving as we wish due to our own free choice (i.e. the opposite of the agentic state). The shift from autonomous to agentic states is called the agentic shift, which Milgram said happens when we perceive someone else to be in authority and so has greater social power.
Milgram found that lots of ppl reported wanting to stop but feeling unable to. He called the reasons that ppl stay in the agentic state “binding factors”; things the agent does to reduce the moral strain, e.g. blaming the victim or denying the damage they’ve caused.
Evaluate the agentic state
(+) Blass and Schmidt (2001) showed ppl a film of Milgram’s research and asked them whose fault it was; they all said the exp.er as he was the one in charge/ in authority and saw the ppt as just following the exp.er’s orders
(-) Agentic shift suggests that the nurses in the Hofling exp should’ve felt high moral strain, but they didn’t; can’t explain all behaviour
(-) Also can’t explain why some Nazis acted brutally even when not ordered to; can’t explain all obedience
(-) Removes a level of accountability; problems for legal system if we’re “powerless to stop” our actions
Describe legitimacy of authority as a social-psychologial factor affecting obedience
Society is structured in a heirarchy, so some ppl e.g. police officers, teachers etc have some sort of authority over us, which we all agree needs to happen so society can function smoothly. Some ppl are therefore given power to punish us, and we have to trust that they don’t abuse their power. We learn acceptance of this in childhood from parents, teachers etc.
We get problems when legitimate authority becomes destructive authority, i.e. ppl in power order ppl to do destructive things e.g. in Milgram’s exp, where exp.er used prods to make ppl do things against their consciences
Evaluate legitimacy of authority
(+) Can explain My Lai massacre, where they were just “following orders”
(-) 35% of Milgram’s ppts didn’t go to 450V so can’t explain all beh
(+) Can explain cultral diffs e.g. only 16% of Australians went to 450V vs 80% of Germans; reflects how societies are structured
(-) Again removes accountability; legal implications
(-) Still can’t explain why Nazis were so brutal even when not ordered to do so
Describe the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation of obedience.
Dev.ed by Adorno who thought that ppl’s racial prejudices lay in early childood experiences; a harsh upbringing w/ lots of strict punishment gave someone the authoritarian personality, as they might displace their uncomfortable relationship w/ their parents onto minority groups, who they view as weaker.
Ppl with the AP have a high obedience and respect for authority but are harsh to minority groups and others they view as “weaker” than themselves.
Adorno made the F-scale (potential for fascism scale), which is still used to measure the AP today.
Evaluate the authoritarian personality
(+) Milgram found that those who went to 450V all scored highly on the F scale
(-) This is only correlation, not causation.
(-) It’s unlikely that millions of ppl in Germany all had the AP; can’t explain all beh.
(-) F scale q’s are all worded in the same direction; methodologically flawed so lowers validity of argument
(-) Determinist and socially sensitive; places blame on parents for AP behaviour
