obedience

Question 1

define obedience

Answer 1

type of social influence
involves acting on the orders of an authority figure

Question 2

what are the two explanations for obedience?

Answer 2

agentic state
legitimacy of authority

Question 3

define agentic state

Answer 3

individuals carry out orders as an ‘agent’ for a figure of authority.
these individuals no longer view their decisions as autonomous or take responsibility for their actions

Question 4

define legitimacy of authority

Answer 4

an individual obeys someone in a perceived higher position of authority or in the social hierarchy

Question 5

outline the aim of Milgram’s original study (1963)

Answer 5

To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person (i.e. evaluating the influence of a destructive authority figure)
used 40 male volunteers

Question 6

outline the procedure of Milgram’s study

Answer 6

1. a participant given the role of ‘teacher’ and a confederate given the role of ‘learner’
2. teacher had to ask the learner a series of questions: whenever the learner got the answer wrong, the teacher administered an electric shock which went up in increments of 15 (300V to 450V with 330V marked ‘lethal’)
3. teacher thought shocks were real, learner was acting
4. teachers were assessed on how many volts they were willing to shock the learner with
5. the experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders/ prods when the teacher refused to administer a shock, which increased in terms of demandingness for every time the teacher refused to administer a shock. the same 4 prods were used each time the teacher refused (3 demanded obedience to science, 1 demanded obedience to the experimenter)

Question 7

explain the findings from Milgram’s original study

Answer 7

100% of participants went up to 300V
65% went up to 450V
12.5% stopped at 300V showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate

Question 8

what are the situational factors affecting obedience studied by Milgram?

Answer 8

uniform
location
proximity

Question 9

explain the effect of uniform on obedience in Milgram’s variation

Answer 9

A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy. It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes. However, demand characteristics were evident in this condition, with even Milgram admitting that participants could see through this deception

Question 10

explain the results of uniform on obedience in Milgram’s variation

Answer 10

participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat as wearing a uniform gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy
it was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes

Question 11

explain the effect of location on obedience in Milgram’s variation

Answer 11

A person is more likely to obey someone in a location linked to higher status and legitimacy. Milgram’s study was conducted at Yale University and so obedience was greater than in a variation of the study conducted in a run-down office. This is because the prestigious nature of specific locations demand obedience from participants as well as potentially increasing the trust they place in the researchers.

Question 12

explain the results of location on obedience in Milgram’s variation

Answer 12

participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments

Question 13

explain the effect of proximity on obedience in Milgram’s variation

Answer 13

A person is more likely to obey when they are less able to see the negative consequences of their actions and are in closer proximity to the authority figure. This is because it increases the pressure to obey and decreases the pressure to resist. In Milgram’s study, obedience was higher when the experimenter was in the same room as the participant (62.5%) as opposed to being in a different room and speaking over the phone (20.5%)

Question 14

explain the results of proximity on obedience in Milgram’s variation

Answer 14

participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room (62.5%) rather than over the phone (20%)
reduced to 30% in the touch proximity condition - experimenter forcibly placed the participant’s hand on the electric plate

Question 15

evaluate the strengths of Milgram’s study

Answer 15

+ participants were thoroughly debriefed on the real aims of the study to deal with the ethical issues of deception and lack of informed consent. in a follow-up study, 84% of participants were glad they were part of the study and 74% felt as if they learned something suggesting that the study left little to no long-term psychological harm
+ real-life application - may reduce future obedience in response to destructive authority figures (e.g. obedience has resulted in negative social change - the Nazis obeyed orders and as a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted and what he wanted was not what the majority wanted, such research gives an insight into why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews highlighting how easily we can be victims to such pressures). a general awareness of the power of such influences is useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours
+ highly replicable - procedure has been repeated with consistent and similar obedience levels were found
+ external validity established by supporting studies e.g. Hofling et al (1966) observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural experiment and found that 95% of nurses obeyed a doctor (confederate) over the phone to increase the dosage of a patient’s medicine to double what is advised suggesting that ‘everyday’ individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive authority figures

Question 16

evaluate the weaknesses of Milgram’s study

Answer 16

• ethical issues of deception and informed consent - deception was justified by the aim of avoiding demand characteristics, the Please-U effect and participant reactivity
• psychological harm inflicted upon participants as they showed signs of psychological and physiological distress (e.g. trembling, sweating etc)
• raises a socially sensitive issue - Milgram’s findings suggest that those who are responsible for killing innocent people can be excused because it was the situation they were in that made them obey - individuals are expected to take moral responsibility for their actions
• lack of internal validity - more about trust rather than obedience as participants may have trusted that nothing serious would happen to the confederate in a prestigious university. variation in a run-down office showed a decrease to 20.5% in obedience levels suggesting that the original study did not investigate what it aimed to investigate
• lacks ecological validity - tasks given to the participant are not likely to encounter in real life - methodology lacks mundane realism

Question 17

what is a dispositional explanation

Answer 17

an internal explanation e.g. personality factors/ individual reasons why someone obeys

Question 18

what is a dispositional explanation for obedience?

Answer 18

the authoritarian personality

Question 19

what is the authoritarian personality?

Answer 19

An authoritarian personality tends to show extreme respect for authority, status and hierarchies; despises those they consider to be ‘weak’; has conventional attitudes towards gender, sexuality, race etc. is rigid in their beliefs; is justice-focused; is likely to have right-wing political views

An authoritarian personality is likely to be the result of harsh parenting in which discipline was a key feature and expectation of ‘perfect’ behaviour is common i.e. the child is shown love as long as they behave exactly how the parent wants them to behave

this shows a ‘fixed’ cognitive style as such individuals adopt absolutist thinking

Question 20

explain Adorno’s findings/research

Answer 20

Adorno found that people with this trait are more likely to obey
measured using the F-scale (fascism scale)
Adorno believed in the psychodynamic theory - found that when a child had disciplinarian parents, they would displace their anger with their parents onto seemingly ‘inferior’ others (scapegoating)
they would idolise their parents whilst simultaneously fear and despise them
the child would then target their displaced anger on those who seem weak and unable to defend themselves

Question 21

evaluations of the authoritarian personality

Answer 21

• serious methodological issues associated with the F-scale as it is susceptible to acquiescence bias - suggesting that the findings produced by the F-scale may lack validity and reliability
• may not be able to explain all cases of obedience because it measures the likeness between and individual and fascism, ignoring left-wing authoritarianism
• little ecological validity because it cannot explain real-life examples of mass obedience - e.g. unlikely that Nazi Germany population all had Authoritarian Personalities but rather shared the same struggles in life and displaced their own fears onto a perceived ‘inferior’ group - limited explanation for obedience