Obedience

Question 1

Milgrams research procedure

Answer 1

• 40 American men volunteered to take part in study at Yale university supposedly on memory
• Draw was fixed do the participant was always the Teacher
• Experimenter wore grey lab coat
• Teacher had to give learner electric shock each mistake -> increase in 15 volts up to 450V

Question 2

Milgrams baseline findings

Answer 2

• Every participant delivered all the shocks up to 300V
• 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% continued up to 450V
• Participants showed signs of extreme tension -> sweat, tremble, stutter

Question 3

Milgrams conclusion

Answer 3

• German people are not ‘different’
• American participants were willing to obey orders even when they might harm someone

Question 4

Strength of Milgrams study

Answer 4

Replicated in a French documentary
Participants believe they were contestants and paid to give electric shocks to other participants
80% delivered maximum shock of 460V to an apparently unconscious man

Question 5

Limitation of Milgrams research

Answer 5

• Low internal validity
• May not have been testing what her intended to test
• Holland and Orne argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn’t believe in the set up so were ’play acting’
• Perry listened to tapes of participants and reported that on about half of them believed the shocks were real
  Suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics

Question 6

Proximity

Answer 6

• In the proximity variation of Milgrams study teacher and learner were in the same room -> obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
• In the touch proximity variation teacher had to force hand of learner onto electric shock plate -> obedience dropped to 30%
• In remote instruction variation the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone -> obedience reduced to 20.5%

Question 7

Explanation for proximity

Answer 7

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions
Less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so more obedient

Question 8

Location

Answer 8

Milgrams conducted varitation in a run down office block rather than in Yale Univerity setting - obedience fell to 47.5%

Question 9

Explanation for location

Answer 9

Prestigious university environment gave Milgrams study legitimacy and authority - participants perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected

Question 10

Uniform

Answer 10

• Experimenter called away because of an inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure
• Role was take over by ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes
• Obedience dropped to 20%

Question 11

Explanation for uniform

Answer 11

• Encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority
• Their authority is legitimate and entitled to expect obedience

Question 12

Research support for situational variables

Answer 12

• Bickman had 3 confederates dressed in different outfits
• Individually stood on the street and asked people to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter
• People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than jacket and tie

Question 13

Limitation of Milgrams situational variables research

Answer 13

• Low internal validity
• When experimenter is replaced by member of the public even Milgrams recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth
• Unclear whether findings are genuinely due to the operation or demand characteristics

Question 14

Agentic state

Answer 14

Mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure

Question 15

Autonomous state

Answer 15

Being aware of the consequences of one’s own actions and therefore taking voluntary control of own behaviour

Question 16

Agentic shift

Answer 16

Shift from autonomy to agency

Question 17

Binding factors

Answer 17

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise damaging effect of their behaviour
Reduces ‘moral strain’ they are feeling

Question 18

Research support for Agentic state

Answer 18

When participants asked experimenter who was resoponsible, research claimed responsibility which meant they often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections

Question 19

Limitation for Agentic shift

Answer 19

• Rank and Jacobson’s found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor
• Almost all nurses remained autonomous
• Suggests the Agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience

Question 20

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 20

Explanation for obedience which suggests that we more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
Authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy

Question 21

Destructive authority

Answer 21

Obvious in Milgrams study when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences

Question 22

Strength of legitimacy explanation

Answer 22

• Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
• 16% of female Australian participants went all the way to 450 V in a Milgram style study

Question 23

Limitation of legitimacy

Answer 23

• Cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
• E.g. nurses in Rank and Jacobsons study - more were disobedient despite working in rigidly hierarchal authority structure

Question 24

Authoritarian personality

Answer 24

• Extreme respect for and submissive to authority
• Unflexible world view -> rigid thinking, ‘different’ people’s ideas are wrong
• Comes from harsh parenting - feelings of resentment + hostility can’t be expressed to parents so displaced onto others who are weaker -> scapegoating

Question 25

Adorno et al’s research

Answer 25

• Studied 2000 middle class white American’s and their unconscious attitudes towards racial groups
• Uses the Facism scale to measure authoritarian personality
• People who scored higher identified with ‘strong’ people
• Had certain cognitive style and had fixed position opinions of other groups
  Positive correlation between authoritarian and prejudice

Question 26

Strength of Authoritarian personality

Answer 26

• Milgram interviewed sample of people who had participated in original obedience studies
• All completed the F scale
• 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on F scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants

Question 27

Limitation for Authoritarian personalities

Answer 27

• Researchers analysed the individual sub scales of the F scale
• Found obedient p’s had characteristics unusual for Authoritarians
• e.g. didn’t glorify fathers, didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and did not have hostile attitudes towards mothers
• Link is complex