Obedience

Question 1

Obedience

Answer 1

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish.

Question 2

How does the the Mai Lai Massacre demonstrate obedience?

Answer 2

Lieutenant Calley commanded a platoon that killed many innocent civilians. Firstly, the platoon were obeying Calley’s orders. Calley also claimed that he was following orders from his superiors.

Question 3

How does Abu Gharib demonstrate obedience?

Answer 3

Prisoners of Abu Gharib were treated inhumanely by the military police. Those involved stated that their actions were dictated by people higher in their chain of command.

Question 4

‘The Germans are Different’ Hypothesis

Answer 4

States that Germans have a basic character deficit whuch means they have a readiness to obey people in authority, regardless of what is asked of them.

Question 5

Milgram (1963) - Aim

Answer 5

To investigate how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

Question 6

Milgram (1963) - Procedure

Answer 6

40 20-50 year old male participants were recruited through a newspaper advert. They were paired with a confederate and drew lots (this was fixed) to determine who would be the ‘teacher’ and the ‘learner’. The participant was always the teacher. They were taken to different rooms, where the learner had electrodes attached to him, and the teacher had an electric shock generator, marked from 15-450 volts. This set-up was all fake - the participant did not know this. The participant read out word questions to the confederate; if they got the answer wrong, the teacher had to shock them, with increasing voltages for every wrong answer. The confederates shouted pleas throughout, and were silent after 300 volts, while the experimenter prompted the participant with four different prods if they refused to carry on.

Question 7

Milgram (1963) - Findings

Answer 7

100% of participants continued to give shocks until 300 volts. 65% of them continued to 450 volts - the fatal shock. Participants showed signs of extreme tension - sweating, trembling, stuttering, digging nails into their hands. Three had seizures.

Question 8

Milgram (1963) - Conclusion

Answer 8

Under the right circumstances, ordinary people will obey unjust orders due to the agentic state.

Question 9

Agentic State

Answer 9

A psychological state where we feel so personal responsibility for our actions.

Question 10

Milgram (1963) - Strengths

Answer 10

• Technically, Milgram did not break any ethical guidelines as none were officially made at the time of his experiment.
• Good internal validity from participants as 70% said that they believed they were administering real shocks.
• Good population validity - participants were from mixed backgrounds, and the experiment has been replicated in other cultures, with similar results.
• 84% of participants later said that they were glad they took part, and 74% felt they had learnt something.
• Later studies have provided supporting evidence for Milgram’s findings, such as Hofling et al.
• Participants were made aware that they would still be paid even if they withdrew early.

Question 11

Milgram (1963) - Limitations

Answer 11

• The study faces many ethical issues, (by today’s standards) such as deception, right to withdraw, and protection from harm.
• Lacks ecological validity due to the use of a lab experiment.
• The prods used by the experimenters may have made participants feel like they did not have the right to withdraw.

Question 12

Which three situational variables did Milgram investigate?

Answer 12

Proximity, location, and uniform.

Question 13

How did Milgram change his procedure to investigate proximity?

Answer 13

In the proximity condition, participants were in the same room as the learner. In the touch proximity condition, the teacher had to place the learner’s hand onto an electric shock pad. In the remote instruction, the researcher left the room, and continued to give the teacher instructions over the phone.

Question 14

How did proximity affect obedience?

Answer 14

When in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%. With touch proximity, obedience was 30%. With remote instruction, obedience dropped to 20.5%.

Question 15

How did Milgram change his procedure to investigate location?

Answer 15

He conducted the experiment in a run-down building rather than Yale University.

Question 16

How did location affect obedience?

Answer 16

Obedience dropped to 47.5%.

Question 17

How did Milgram change his procedure to investigate uniform?

Answer 17

In this variation, the experimenter would leave due to a phone call. Their role would then be taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes (a confederate).

Question 18

How did uniform affect obedience?

Answer 18

Obedience dropped to 20%.

Question 19

Why did obedience reduce in Milgram’s variations?

Answer 19

With increased proximity, and without a more authorative, professional experimenter, the participants would not be in an agentic state, so they would feel responsible for their actions.

Question 20

Milgram’s Variations - Strengths

Answer 20

• Support from Bickman (1974) - confederates dressed as guards, milkmen, and civilians gave orders to 153 pedestrians. Obedience was at 80% for guards, and only 40% for civilians.
• Good generalisability, across different cultures and genders, obedience tends to stay within 50-90% with Milgram’s procedure.
• Supporting evidence from Sheridan and King (1972).
• Participants of ‘Le Joue De La Mort’ (2010) behaved similarly to Milgram’s participants, (nervous laughter, nail biting, anxiety) despite being of a culture - French. This supports the generalisability and application to other cultures.

Question 21

Milgram’s Variations - Limitations

Answer 21

• Replications of Milgram’s procedure can be criticised for taking place mostly in westernised countries. Therefore, we cannot apply findings to more eastern, collectivist cultures.
• Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s procedures as they are too unrealistic, especially when a ‘member of the public’ took over. If participants knew they were being deceived it is likely that they were affected by demand characteristics, making results less valid.
• The lab environment used is artificial, and also does not relate to the task at all. This is unlike Hofling et al’s research, taking place in a hospital, with nurses’ tasks being to administer medicine.