Explanations For Obedience Flashcards
1
Q
Milgram- Method
A
- 40 American male volunteers from an advert.
- 2 roles: Learner (confederate) and Teacher (participants)- appeared randomly assigned but wasn’t.
- Teacher asked learner questions, for every wrong answer they gave an electric shock going up to max 450v (can kill), 300v (makes someone unconscious).
- The response from the confederate were tape recorded. When the participants stopped the “authority figure” in a grey lab coat gave standardised prompts.
2
Q
Milgram- Results
A
- 100%= 300v at which the learner went silent. 65%= 450v.
- The situation creates obedience. Everyone is capable of immoral acts in the same situation. Not dispositional.
3
Q
Milgram evaluation support- High control and causation
A
- One strength of Milgram’s research is that it had high control and causation.
- Ev- Standardised responses from learner from tape recording: standardised prompts given from the experimenter. An objective measure of obedience using voltage.
- Ex- This means that we can be certain that it is the presence of an authority figure that is causing the level of obedience to occur, as all participants were in the same situation.
- However, it isn’t ethical as participants were asked to shock people and were given prompts to do so.
4
Q
Milgram evaluation criticism- Ethical issues
A
- The main criticism of Milgram’s research is the ethical issues it posed.
- Ev- There was issues to harm with participants as some had seizures. There was deception as the shocks were fake. There was lack of right to withdraw as there was coercion through experiment prompts.
- Ex- This is an issues as it could bring psychology into disrepute. People could stop trusting the profession and no longer take part in experiments, or even stop Psychologists from researching at all.
- However, Milgram was trying to disprove the situation and in fact prove that not everyone would harm another person in the same situation.
5
Q
Variables affecting obedience- Uniform
A
- Milgram (65% with legitimate uniform).
Bickman- Confederate asked public to pick up litter dressed as a: - Guard- 82% (legitimate uniform).
- Milkman- 64% (non-legitimate uniform).
- Casual- 36% (no uniform).
6
Q
Variables affecting obedience- Location
A
- Milgram- 65% in prestigious location- Yale University.
- Rundown office- 47.5% non prestigious location.
7
Q
Variables affecting obedience- Proximity
A
- Proximity of Teacher to Learner- 40%.
- Touch proximity (teacher held learners hand to shock pad)- 30%.
- Proximity experimenter present (Milgram)- 65%
- Proximity experimenter absence- 21%.
8
Q
Situational variables affecting obedience evaluation- Research support for uniform
A
- Research support for uniform affects obedience,
- Ev- Bickman- confederate asked public to pick up litter dressed as: guard (82%), milkman (64%) and casual (36%).
- Ex- Uniform increased obedience. Guard uniform perceived as more legitimacy in the park setting than the milkman: creates an agentic shift more quickly in the guard condition due to that perceived legitimacy, making it easier for them to obey.
- However, there is a lack of mundane realism. Milkman not usually in parks giving instructions on litter, so realise fake experiment. Behaviour more demand characteristics.
9
Q
Situational variables affecting obedience support- Location
A
- There is further research to support situational variables affecting obedience being location.
- Ev- Milgram Yale- 6% (prestigious). Rundown office- 47.5%. (Non prestigious).
- Ex- More prestigious means more obedience. More perceived legitimacy at Yale, more likely to agentically shift, due to the higher status of Yale vs rundown office, gives more legitimacy to the authority in that location.
- However, because of the high reputation of Yale, participants thought shocks wouldn’t be real. Whereas, rundown office, no reputation more likely to think socks are real, so less likely to obey.
10
Q
Situational variables affecting obedience support- Proximity
A
- The final situational variable that affects obedience is the proximity to the learner or experimenter.
- Ev- Proximity of teacher to learner 40%. Proximity experimenter present 65%. Experimenter absence 21%.
- Ex- Obedience increase- close proximity to a legitimate authority or less proximity to person harmed.- easier to shift responsibility onto the experimenter or doesn’t see harm done.
- However, socially sensitive of how research is used in real life. Is the research helpful in reducing maltreatment of others or is it used to increase wartime obedience within the army.
11
Q
Agentic state
A
- Autonomous state- Where a person behaves according to their own principles and feels responsible for their actions.
- When confronted with an authority figure, there is an agentic shift. A shift from an autonomous to an agentic state due to the authority figures position in a social hierarchy.
- Agentic state- An individual acts as an agent for someone else. They assume the person giving orders is taking responsibility.
- Binding factors- Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they are feeling.
12
Q
Legitimacy of authority
A
We accept that an individual rightly has authority. We give up some of our independence to hand over control of our behaviour to those we trust to exercise their authority appropriately. We need legitimate authority figures to maintain social order.
13
Q
Agentic state support- Research support
A
- Research support Milgram’s claims an agentic state.
- Ev- A film of Milgram’s study shown to students. They blamed the experimenter due to legitimate and expert authority.
- Ex- People recognise, others obey legitimate authority and shift the responsibility onto them for the orders given (agentic shift), lessening the moral responsibility that they hold for theirs to others actions.
- Problem means people report who they think is responsible, not what they think internally. Other cultures may not hold the authority figure responsible.
14
Q
Agentic state criticism- Too rigid
A
- Milgram’s assumption on agentic state is too rigid.
- Ev- Studied German doctors at Auschwitz. They gradually shifted from ordinary medical professionals concerned about the welfare of their patients, into doctors that carried out inhumane experiments on helpless prisoners.
- Ex- May be nothing to do with the agent or authority but more to do with becoming complicit in an ‘evil’ act and justifying the internal reasons.
- Hence this calls into question whether obedience is purely situational as Milgram supposed, but is more about internal disposition, which makes it easier to obey.
15
Q
Legitimacy of authority support- Explains cultural differences
A
- However, legitimacy of authority does explain cultural differences in obedience.
- Ev- For example, when Milgram’s study was replicated in Australia, only 16% went to 450v. Whereas in Germany 85% of participants did.
- Ex- Shows that not all cultures see authority equally legitimate, as Austria is less concerned about authority than Germany, so explains why there’s less obedience to authority.
- Therefore, there are environmental factors, not just situational factors around them at the time. There may also be some dispositional factors to why people disobey.
16
Q
Adornos personality test
A
- 2000 middle-class Americans were interviewed and tested using the F-Scales.
- They found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice towards other groups of people.
17
Q
Dispositional explanations for obedience- Support individual dispositional affects obedience
A
- Research to support individual disposition affects obedience.
- Ev- Adorno- 2000 middle class Americans were tested using the F-scale. They found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice towards other groups of people.
- Ex- Proves that disposition increases obedience. Milgram only had 65% go to 450v, not 100% due to not having authoritarian personality. All participants had some prompts.
- However, 100% did go to 300v. If purely situational it would be 100%, therefore 35% is the participants disposition.
18
Q
Dispositional explanations for obedience criticism- Methodological problems
A
- One criticism is that there are methodological problems with the F-scale measure of AP.
- Ev- Self report and all F-scale items same direction.
- Ex- Adorno may just be measuring acquiescence rather than authoritarian personality, as can get high score just ticking down all one side of the Likert scale.
- However, may be overestimating the part personality plays in obedience as 65% in Milgram’s study obeyed, which is unlikely all had an authoritarian personality.
19
Q
Disposition explanations for obedience criticism- Not accurate
A
- Dispositional theory is not accurate on the cause of authoritarian personality.
- Ev- Research found participants who scored high on the F-scale had a good relationship with patients.
- Ex- Therefore harsh, strict parenting is incorrect. Reason for assumption on harsh parenting is based on US army , taught to obey and more likely to come from strict backgrounds.
- However, AP has positive implications for personal accountability. E.g. Nuremberg trials can prosecute each person that took part, if situational then no one is at fault.
