MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- obedience Flashcards
Who is Adolf Eichmann
One of the chief Nazi architects behind the mass murder of Jews in concentration camps
What did Arendt claim about Eichmann
Any of us, put in the position to follow evil orders, will follow them
Eichmann was a normal person
What did Milgram’s (1963, 1974) studies of obedience to authority aim to assess initially
Cross-cultural differences in levels of obedience
Aimed to use more consequential behaviour than Asch’s line length studies
What did naive participants and experts predict would happen in Milgram’s studies
Minimal levels of obedience to administer potentially lethal shocks
What was Milgram’s study advertised as
Advertised as study of ‘memory’ in local newspaper
Milgram’s study procedure- initial procedure (settin up situation)
Experiment was described as involving role of punishment in learning
Participant and confederate ‘co-participant’ allocated roles by rigged ballot, participant assigned teacher
Learner strapped to a chair and electrodes attached
Milgram’s study procedure- what were teachers instructed to do
Test memory for word pairs via intercom
Every incorrect answer required punishment using a higher-level electric shock
Milgram’s study procedure- describe the shock machine
Shock switches increased in 15v increments up to 450v
375V switch said ‘danger severe shock’
450v switch said ‘XXX’
Milgram’s study procedure- describe the learner’s scripted responses in the ‘new baseline’ condition
At 150V- complains of heart problem, asks to be let out
300V- learner refuses to answer anymore, get me out of here
330V- learner is silent, no further sound
Milgram’s study procedure- what happened if the teacher expressed reluctance to continue
Experimenter gave a series of ‘prods’-
1) Please continue
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
Milgram’s study procedure- what did the experimenter reply to teachers asking about the danger of the shocks
Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so go on
Milgram’s study procedure- what did the experimenter reply to teachers pointing out the learner did not wish to continue
Whether the learner likes it, you must go on until he has learned all of the word pairs correctly
How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V when no feedback from learner
Almost everyone
How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V when learner bangs on wall
65%
How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V in baseline condtion (learner screams and complains by intercom)
62.5%
How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V in new basline condition (learner reports heart condition)
65%
Describe the qualitative observations of participants in Milgram’s study
Fidgeting, shaking, nervous laughter, groaning, 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures- intense psychological conflict
Milgram’s study procedure- what were the 4 variations of contact with learner
Pounding- learner bangs on wall
Hearing- escalating screams and complains via intercom then no sound
Seeing- teacher and learner together in same room
Holding- teacher presses learner’s hand onto shock plate
What is a limitation of the various conclusions made by milgram across his experiments
Most experiments vary factors as part of a single experiment, but most of Milgram’s conclusions involve comparing different experiments where different things happened- may be other variables impacting differences in results
How many participants gave 450V when seeing the learner
Around 40%
How many participants gave 450V when holding learner’s hand onto shock plate
Around 30%
What is the effect of increasing proximity between teacher and learner
Levels of contact increase and suffering is witnessed more directly and learner humanised, obedience decreases
What were the 2 different social support conditions for Milgram’s experiment
Two experimenters, disobeying co-participants
What was the effect of decreased proximity between experimenter and teacher in Milgram’s experiments
Telephone instructions given by experimenter over the phone decrease obedience greatly to 21%
Social supports conditions, Milgram- two experimenters condition
When 2 experiments argued about whether the shocks should be delivered, 18/20 participants stopped after 150v when the learner refused to continue, and no participants delivered 450V
Social support conditions, Milgram- disobeying co-participants condition
When 2 confederates acting as additional teachers refused to continue, 10% of participants went to 450V
There is ‘identification with the disobedient confederates and the possibility of falling back on them for social support’ (1965)
Effect of experimenter status Milgram
When another participant took over as experimenter (reduced status), obedience decreased- 20% of participants went to 450V
Effect of institutional prestige- Milgram
When the experiment took palce in a shabby office in an industrial city rather than at Yale University) decreased prestige, 48% of participants proceeded to 450V- decreased obedience
Summarise the factors contributing to increased obedience
Legitimacy of experimeter (and institutional context) Distance between teacher and learner Proximity of experimenter and teacher Lack of social support for disobedience (Haslam et al, 2014)
List the ethical issues of Milgram’s studies
Lack of informed consent (withheld information would have affected whether they agreed to participate), experimenter’s denial of participants’ right to withdraw, participants suffering during procedure, negative after-effects
Describe the negative after-effects of Milgram’s studies
Participants had the knowledge afterwards they had delivered lethal electric shocks, huge moral burden
Kelman quote on moral issues of Milgram’s studies
Kelman (1967 p4) ‘Do we, for the purpose of experimentation, have the right to provide such potentially disturbing insights to subjects who do not know that this is what they are coming for?’
What is the aim of a debrief
Putting participants back into the same state of mind they would have been if they had not taken the study
Describe one participants reaction to Milgram’s debrief
They were angry they had been deceived, were embarrassed they had been deceived and gone so far, and questioned what if they had had a heart problem??
What was the split of participants being glad vs sorry to have taken part in Milgram’s study
84% were glad to have taken part (though may have been rationalising their participation and making themselves feel better) while 1.3% were sorry to have taken part
How many participants reported being bothered by the study since taking part
30% of particpants said they had been bothered by the study since taking part, while 7% said they had been bothered quite a bit
What did Kohlberg say about who was responsible for the pain inflicted on learners
Milgram was unwittingly the moral victim of the ‘authority of science’, and inflicted pain on others for the greater social welfare (1974)
What did Brandt say about tMilgram’s results
Had Milgram analysed his procedure beforehand he would have known his study’s results- since he was willing to make his participants suffer in the name of science, his participants would do the same
How do sociocultural factors cause obedience (Milgram, 1974)
People are socialised into obeying authorities (eg parents, teachers, bosses), and expect authority figures to be legitimate and trustworthy
What is Milgram’s theory of the agentic shift as an explanation for obedience?
Participants switched from seeing themselves as personally responsible to seeing themselves as the agent of the experimenter
What are binding factors as reasons for disobedience
Subtle creation of psychological barriers to disobedience
What are binding factors in Milgram’s study
eg gradual increase in shock level of only 15V each time, experimenter develops relationship with teacher, verbal prods, calmness of experimenter
What are situational factors in the context of obedience
Strong context overrides influence of individual personality
What are two socio-relational factors of Milgram’s experiments
Arguments presented by experimenter, relative identification with experimenter and learner
Socio-relational factors, arguments presented experimenter
Gibson (2013) argued paritcipants weren’t just obeying orders but succumbing to the persuasive arguments of experimenter (eg no permanent tissue damage)- when direct orders were given in prod 4, participants failed to continue
Socio-relational factors, relative identification with experimenter and learner
Participants acceded to experimenter’s wishes because of his physical presence and their commitment to the experiment’s apparent goals- identification with the victim reduced obedience (eg physically/emotionally closer)
How many participants in Milgram’s original study refused to continue to the 450V shock level
35%
Evidence that disobedience is sanctioned by society
Moral rebels eg whistleblowers are frequently harassed or ostracized and rarely receive their reserved respect (Monin et al, 2008)
Study showing decrease in whistleblowing as employment time increases
Whistleblowing becomes less likely the longer someone remains part of an organisation (Goldie et al, 2003) probably because of social identification and/or increasing awareness of potential costs
How many subjects stopped at 300V in Milgram’s experiment (1963)
300V (where the victim kicks the wall and stops providing answers)
Why did Milgram (1963) suggest participants may have obeyed because of the experiment’s worth
May have believed the experiment was designed for a worth purpose, advancement of knowledge about learning/memory, and obedience is an instrumental element of this situation
Why did Milgram (1963) suggest participants may have obeyed because of commitments involved
Victim has voluntarily submitted and (intitially) consented to the experimenter’s authority so has an obligation to the experimenter
Subject has also made a commitment to the experimenter, has also been paid upfront
Why did Milgram (1963) suggest participants may have obeyed because of the novelty of the situation
There is ambiguity around what a psychologist may reasonable require of his subject and their corresponding rights, and no opportunity to discuss with others- situation is novel with no comparable stsndard
Results of variant where authority is an ordinary person and lab-coated scientist receives shocks
All participants stop at the 150v mark
What concept does Milgram argue is important in explaining the effects of proximity
‘Incipient group formation’ (1964)-in the proximity and touch conditions, the teacher and learner don’t have a wall between them and the teacher has an ‘ally close at hand and eager to collaborate in a revolt’
Study criticising agentic state as an explanation for Milgram’s results
Mantell and Panzarella (1976)- no evidence the different levels of obedience witnessed across study variants relate o differences in the extent participants enter into an agentic state
How does Darley (1992) criticise the agentic state concept
Agentic state is conceptualised as an all-or-nothing affair that doesn’t accomodate different degrees of obedience, notion of a ‘trigger’ than switches us between both states
How is the agentic state explanation overly simplistic of reality
Reduces a multi-vocal reality, where the participant must chose which voice to heed and how to balance their relationship with authority/learner, to a univocal account
How did Bettelheim (2004) criticise the ethics of Milgram’s studies
They said they were ‘in line with the human experiments of the Nazis
What is one alternative paradigm to Milgram’s studies
Giving negative feedback to job applicants to make them more nervous (Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1986)
Suggestion of binding effects of gradual increase in shock level
Packer (2008)- no qualitative breakpoint that would justify participants beginning to disobey, 150V breakpoint when learner first objects acts as this
Example of a study looking at historical disobedience from a psychological perspective
Rochat and Modigliani (1995)- analysis of resistance to oppression of minorities by villagers of Le Chambon in France in WW2, looking at conditions that promoted this resistance
New approach that allows us to address real harm in obedience studies without actually harming participants
VR simulations of the Milgram paradigm show behaviour closely corresponds to that seen in the original paradigm (Slater et al, 2006)
Explanation of obedience in terms of role positions
Meeus and Raajimakers (1995)- obedience is because of a cultural tendency to identify with the social system and see our fellow citizens in terms of specific role positions- participants relate to the learner in terms of heir role
Rochat and Modigliani (1995)- application of social relationships o Chambon villagers
Villagers were descendents of Persecuted Protestant minority so felt similarity with the persecuted and likened the government to their own persecutors
Persecutors become ‘hem’ and persecuted became ‘us’
Evidence for participants being convinced rather than ordered until he final prod
Burger (2009)- every time the experimenter gives the final prod (direct order), participants refuse to continue
What is obedience?
Complying with orders from a person of higher social status within a defined hierarchy (Miller, 1995)
How does obedience link to norms?
Obedience is an example of legitimate power functioning, where an internalized framework of norms, values and customs specifies that such influence is appropriate (Turner, 1991)
In Milgram’s studies, no participant stopped before…
300v
What was the level of obedience if an obeying peer was present
92% (Milgram, 1974)
What term did Milgram use to refer to the gradual increase in shock levels
‘Entrapment’
Results of Milgram asking participants to create a ‘responsiblity clock’ dividing up responsibility
Disobedient and obedient participants attributed equal responsibility to the experimenter, but disobedient participants saw themselves as more responsible ans the learner less so than obedient participants (Milgram, 1974)
Effect of authoritarian personality on obedience
Individuals with an authoritarian personality are more obedient to authority (Elms and Milgram, 1966)
Supporting replication of Milgram’s study
Burger- replicated Milgram’s paradigm only up to 150v
Using the fact that 79% of Milgram’s ppts who exceed 159V went to 450V, Burger’s rate of full obedience to 150V was only slightly lower
Statistic showing early resistance is important in Milgram’s study
Only 17% of those showing early signs of protest delivered shocks more than 150V
Metanalysis of where disobedience is most likely in Milgram’s obedience experiments
Packer (2008)- disobedience most likely at 150V, ‘critical decision point’ where participants acknowledge the learners’ right to terminate the experiment should override their obedience
Criticisms about the internal validity of Milgram’s study
Lab context prevented subjects from seeing their behaviour as truly harmful, and experiments also lack mundane realism
How do conceptual replications of Milgram’s findings respond to criticisms of its internal validity ?
They suggest Milgram succeeded in operationalisating the construct of destructive obedience to authority, including the impact of varying conditions on obedience rates (Miller, 1995)
How can he representativeness of the lab be seen as irrelevant in milgram’s studies
Milgram’s objective was to learn more about the general problem of destructive authority in a conceptually systematic manner (1964) not to replicate Nazi Germany
Argument that the lack of external validity of experiment actually strengthens the case for Milgram’s results’ ecological validity
Mook (1983)- even though many criticise the paradigm’s external validity as the experimenter can’t punish disobedience, obedience was STILL so high, suggesting the effect may be greater in real life
Which part of Milgram’s experiments end to be generalised to other settings
Not the literal findings, but the processes underlying the experiments are generalised (eg binding factors, effecs of proximity) with focus on the importance of ‘specific situational pressures’ over dispositional factors
How can Milgram’s studies be argued to have ecological validiity
The capacity of Milgram’s paradigm to make salient events like the Holocaust and allow its examination, as well as stimulate intellectual inquiry, qualifies as a powerful form of ecological validity
Study supporing the generalisation of Milgram’s studies to crimes of obedience
Brief et al (1991)- subjects will resolve an ethical dilemma in a management decision in the direction favoured by the authority they are accountable to, with 77% opting to continue marketing a potentially dangerous drug when the board chairman advocated for it
What are ‘crimes of obedience’?
Kelman and Hamilton (1989)- focus is on socially destructive acts that can’t be explained without considering the role of authorization eg Watergate scandal, Ford Pinto inquiry
How do Kelman and Hamilon (1989) endorse the generalisability of Milgram’s experiments
They argue he research lab in its bureuacratic sructure is a setting for a crime of boedience- Milgram utilised the social definition of the experimental situation itself as a vehicle for studying obedience
What does Browning (1992) analyse in terms of he generalisability of Milgram’s results
Analyses a large no of German police involved in the massacre of Jews, most of which were normal people
How does Browning’s (1992) analysis of German police support Milgram’s insights
Direct proximity to the horror of the killing increased disobedience, yet the men felt barely any responsiblity for their actions due to the division of labour and removal of killing process to death camps
Without direct surveillance, many policemen did not comply with orders
What does Darley (1992) describe about the evolution of evil within organisations
Darley (1992) psychological changes occur in those whos social organisation pressures them into committing evil acts continually, through a ‘conversion process’ people can become dispositionally evil
How does Rosenblatt (1994) describe the evolution of evil in the tobacco industry
Rosenblatt (1994)- individuals tend to adopt the values of the company, loyalty supercedes objectivity as the company absorbs its employees into its moral universe
What do analyses of he evolution of evil in workplaces (Darley, 1992: Rosenblatt, 1994) rely on in terms of Milgram’s theory
Milgram’s theoretical ideas of binding forces in escalating actions and the development of self-justifying rationalisaions for destrucive behaviour
How does Staub (1989) criticise the generalisability of Milgram’s findings
Evil is a social-psychological phenomenon reflecting important processes, including initial feelings of hostility, so he obedience paradigm is not generalisable to contexts of genocide as Milgram’s subjects were strongly opposed to hurting the victim
Evidence that participants in milgram’s study are just role-playing?
Multiple role-playing versions of the original obedience experiments have found obedience levels comparable to he originals (eg Geller, 1975)
Study showing effec of humane model on obedience studies
Rosenhan (1969)- viewing a humane model who stopped at 210V reduced participants’ obedience rate to 58%
Issues of Milgram’s 4-part proximity series (1965)
Remote and voice-feedback conditions yield almost identical obedience rates
Difference in obedience rates between proximity and touch conditions is also not significant
Why are the differences not commensurate with the differences in proximity?
What is the result of the issues of Milgram’s 4-part proxmity series?
We can’t specify the underlying situational aspects that do/don’t lead to changes in obedience, have not been demonstrated in an orderly way
Study showing authoritarian personality and shocking oneself
Miller (1975)- a small but sigificant correlation betwee authoritarianism and obeying order to shock oneself, in line with ‘authoritarian submission’
What is authoritarian submission
Submissive uncritical attitude towards idealised moral authorities’ of ingroup (Adorno et al, 1950)
Criticism of Milgram’s studies- participants trusted that harm wasn’t occuring
Mixon (1971)- if subjects were sure learner was being harmed, virtually everyone would disobey. Ppts expect nothing truly harmful will occur in a scientific experiment and have every reason to assume ppts will be kept safe
Study supporting idea that trust leads to more obedience
Miller (1975)- more trusting subjects were significantly more likely to follow instructions to receive shocks than less trusting subjects
Study criticising idea tha trust leads to more obedience
Holland (1967)- no relationship between trust (measured by Rotter’s interpersonal trust scale) and obedience
Study supporting effect of hostility on obedience
Haas (1966)- significant positive correlation between degree of obedience and hostility when company management staff asked to critically evaluate their superiors and indicate who should be fired
How may beliefs about external controlling influences affect obedience
Beliefs about ceding vs retaining personal control are salient and predisposing factors in obedience to authority
What study suggests Milgram’s participants saw through the deception but hid their knowledge from the experimenter- procedure
Holland (1967)- 3 conditions, condition 2 subjects are told to ‘watch carefully so they can figure out what the experiment is really about’ but to act as a real subject would, condition 3 subject were told the shocks were much weaker than indicated bu to hide his knowledge from the experimenter
What study suggests Milgram’s participants saw through the deception but hid their knowledge from the experimenter- results
Holland (1967)- 3 conditions did nto differ signficantly and from Milgram’s results, experimenter could not identify which of the 3 conditions a subject was in
How did further analysis of Holland’s experiment (1967) demonstrate he influence of locus of control
Found a signficant IE x Condition interaction, that showed the drop in obedience in condition 2 was largely due to the internal’s obedience scores while externals showed no drop at all- assuming those in condition 2 felt most coerced by the experimenter, this is consistent with other findings on the relationship between I-E and social influence
Quote supporting the results of Holland’s I-E locus of control study
Strickland (1977)- ‘internals not only resist influence by react more strongly than externals to the loss of personal freedom (…) in some cases by engaging in behaviours that are oppositional to the responses desired by the experimenter agent who is attempting to manipulate or change behaviour’
Study suggesting that I-E locus of control is not predictive of obedience
Schurz (1985)- a 3 factor version of Rotter’s I-E scale could not predict obedience when subjects were instructed to apply painful ultrasound stimulation to a learner…BUT disobedient subjects had significantly higher pulse rates when they disobeyed and a greater tendency to accept responsibility for their actions than obedient subjects
Describe the procedure of the study into the role of religious orientation in obedience
Bock (1972)- varied the authority between ‘scientific’, ‘religious’ and ‘neutral’ (salesman who knew little about the experiment) using all Christian subjects
Bock’s (1972) study into religious orientation and obedience- what main effect was discovered
An authority main effect- both scientific and religious authorities yielded higher obedience than the self-decision ‘neutral’ condition, but the different between scientific/religious was not significant
What is locus of control
Rotter’s (1966) internal versus external control (I-E) measures how much a person feels their behaviour is controlled by external influences (eg chance/luck/fate) and how much personal agency they have
Bock’s (1972) study into religious orientation and obedience- what caused people’s obedience scores in authority conditions relative to control condition to increase
As people go from least to most religious, their obedience scores relative to control condition increase-
Bock’s (1972) study into religious orientation and obedience- how receptive to authority was the least religious/antireligious people?
Either no authority was more effective in eliciting obedience than the neutral authority, or at most only the scientific authority was more effective
Under what condition are dispositional factors stronger predictors of behaviour
When there is a heightened sense of self awareness, compared to when awareness is directed outwrads, following Duval and Wichlund’s (1972) theory of objective self-awareness)
How may Milgram’s subjects have had low self awareness
Hunt (1979)- the subject’s high degree of task absorption and narrowed focus means they are very similar to a hypnotised subject
A lot of outward focus on working the shock machine
