obedience

Question 1

obedience definition:

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 if their instructions are not obeyed

Question 2

What is the positive influence of obedience?

Answer 2

Arguably, society could not operate in an effective manner unless rules and laws are obeyed and people in authority are acknowledged as having the right to give orders.

Question 3

However, obedience can also have negative consequences….

Answer 3

During the Second World War, under the Nazis, some German citizens unquestioningly followed orders that saw the mass murder of millions of people, like the Jews, the Gypsies and the disabled – an event that became known as the Holocaust.

Question 4

Milgram (1965) AIms:

Answer 4

Milgram set out to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis:
This hypothesis claimed that Germans are highly obedient and that Adolf Hitler could not have exterminated the Jewish people and other minority groups in the 1930s and 1940s without the unquestioning co-operation of the German population.
Milgram wanted to know whether Germans have a different personality (disposition) that led them to blindly obey and commit acts of murder without question, or whether people are generally more obedient than they would care to believe due to the nature of the situation.

Question 5

Milgram (1965) Aim:

Answer 5

To see if individuals would obey the orders of an authority figure that incurred negative consequences and went against one’s moral code.

Question 6

Milgram procedure:

Answer 6

40 American males aged 20-50 years, with jobs ranging from unskilled to professional (no students), responded to a newspaper advertisement to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University Psychology Department. They were offered $4 to participate.
A confederate is a stooge i.e. an accomplice, working on behalf of the investigator. There were two confederates in this study:
Each participant was met by a confederate experimenter wearing a grey lab coat (to give him the appearance of authority), who was actually a biology teacher.
He introduced participants to Mr Wallace, a confederate participant, a gentle, harmless looking man in his late 50s.

Participants were told that the roles of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ would be determined randomly by drawing lots, but it was rigged:
Mr Wallace was always the Learner
The real participant was always the Teacher

Participants were told that the experiment concerned ‘the effects of punishment on learning’.
The generator had a row of switches, each marked with a voltage level.
The first switch was labelled ’15 volts’ and the verbal description ‘slight shock’.
Each switch gave a shock 15 volts higher than the one before, up to a maximum 450 volts, marked ‘XXX’.
The real participant (‘Teacher’) received a real shock of 45 volts to convince him that everything was authentic. Thereafter, the shocks were not real.
etc

Question 7

In the voice-feedback experiment of Milgram:

Answer 7

At 150 volts the Learner began to protest and demanded to be released.
At 300 volts he refused to answer any more questions and said he had heart problems that were starting to bother him.
At 315 volts he screamed loudly.
From 330 volts no more was heard.

Question 8

Milgram Findings :Quantitative results:

Answer 8

62.5% (25 out of 40 participants) administered the full 450 voltage shock in the voice-feedback experiment.
100% of participants continued up to at least 300 volts.

Question 9

Milgram findings: Qualitative results:

Answer 9

Many participants showed distress, such as twitching, sweating, stuttering or giggling nervously, digging their nails into their flesh and verbally attacking the experimenter.
3 participants had uncontrollable seizures.
Some participants showed little if any signs of discomfort, instead concentrating dutifully on what they were doing.

Question 10

Milgram (1965): Conclusions

Answer 10

Milgram’s research does not support the ‘Germans are different’ (dispositional) hypothesis, because Milgram’s participants were 40 ‘ordinary’ Americans.
Their high level of obedience showed that people obey those regarded as authority figures.
Therefore, many people may have acted just as obediently if they had lived in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Question 11

Milgram (1965): Conclusions

Answer 11

The results suggest that obeying those in authority is normal behaviour in a hierarchically organised society.
Under certain circumstances, most people will blindly obey orders that are distressing and go against their conscience and moral code, losing feelings of empathy and compassion.
Therefore, it is the situation that people find themselves in that determines how they act.

Question 12

Evaluation of Milgram’s study. Practical applications:

Answer 12

It was hoped that Milgram’s findings would help form strategies to reduce destructive blind obedience.
Unfortunately, not much has changed since 1963; horrendous crimes are still committed by people operating under the excuse of ‘simply following orders’ e.g. the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US troops in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004 and Lt William Calley, whose defence of the My Lai Massacre was that he was only doing his duty by following orders.

Question 13

Evaluation of Milgram’s study:  Highly controlled: Standardised procedure

Answer 13

Features that make for a standardised procedure in this study include:
the pre-scripted “prods” used by the Experimenter
the tape-recorded responses from Mr Wallace
the fact that the Teacher cannot see Mr Wallace, the Learner (so there will be no differences in how he looks between each test).
This is a strength of the study because every participant had a similar experience, therefore minimising any potential extraneous variables that could confound the results.

Question 14

Evaluation of Milgram’s study: Milgram’s study lacks internal validity i.e. he was not testing what he intended to test.

Answer 14

Orne and Holland (1968) claimed that participants delivered the shocks because they knew they were not real (therefore not demonstrating obedience). In Milgram’s study, despite the fact the learner cried out in pain, the experimenter remained cool and distant, leading the participant to suppose the ‘victim’ could not really be suffering any real harm

However, 75% of participants in post-study interviews said they did think the shocks were real. Similarly, the extreme physical responses of many of the participants suggests that they believed they were really inflicting pain on someone else.

Question 15

Evaluation of Milgram’s study: Milgram’s study lacks ecological validity.

Answer 15

The lab environment was unrealistic in terms of real-life situations where obedience is seen e.g. participants knew they were taking part in an experiment; it was an unusual environment for them and an artificially constructed situation.

However, a study by Hofling et al. (1966) provided support for the ecological validity of Milgram’s findings, showing that obedience to an authority figure could occur just as readily in a real life setting.

Question 16

Hofling et al. (1966)

Answer 16

This field experiment was conducted in a hospital.
Nurses - working alone - were telephoned by an unknown “Dr Smith” (confederate), who asked them to give 20mg of an unknown drug (Astroten) to a patient.
If the nurse obeyed, she would be breaking several hospital rules e.g. giving twice the maximum dose allowed for this drug.
Key finding: 21 of the 22 (95.4%) nurses obeyed the doctor and went to administer the drug.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings can be generalised to other situations.

Question 17

Evaluation of Milgram’s study: Milgram’s study lacks population validity i.e. it’s difficult to generalise the findings to other people.

Answer 17

This is because the sample only consisted of American male participants (gender bias, androcentric – male-centred; cultural bias), suggesting that the findings cannot be generalised to females.

Sheridan and King (1972) got male and female participants to give real electric shocks to a puppy, every time it responded to a command incorrectly. The shocks were actually only mild (but enough to make the puppy jump/howl). The researchers found that 54% of males and 100% of the females obeyed up to an apparent 450 volts, suggesting that females can be more obedient than males.

Question 18

Evaluation of Milgram’s study: Milgram’s study has high temporal (historical) validity

Answer 18

It has been suggested that the high rate of obedience found in Milgram’s study was a product of American culture being very authoritarian and obedient during the early 1960’s, and, as such, doesn’t reflect obedience levels today.

However, Burger (2009) found levels of obedience (70%) almost identical to those found by Milgram, suggesting that Milgram’s findings still appear to apply as much today as they did in the 1960s.

Question 19

Burger (2009)

Answer 19

Burger developed a version of Milgram’s procedure that addressed ethical concerns.
Important changes were made:
The maximum apparent shock was 150 volts, the level at which the Learner first cries in pain, in order to protect participants from extreme stress.
Participants were told three times they could withdraw at any time.
They received only a 15 volt real shock as opposed to 45 volts.
The experimenter was a clinical psychologist who could stop the procedure at any sign of excessive stress.
Even with these changes, Burger found an obedience rate of 70%, suggesting it is possible to replicate Milgram’s study in a way that is non-harmful to participants.

Question 20

What is autonomous state?

Answer 20

To be independent i.e. when an individual has control and acts according to their own principles. They see themselves as personally responsible for their actions.

Question 21

What is the agentic state?

Answer 21

The individual sees themselves as acting as an ‘agent’ for the authority figure and therefore does not feel personally responsible – they become deindividuated. The individual shifts the responsibility for the consequences of the action to the authority figure – there is a ‘diffusion of responsibility’. The shift from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift.

Question 22

In Milgram’s study, the close proximity of the confederate experimenter to the teacher meant that

Answer 22

the participants entered an ‘agentic state’. In moments where the participant asked who was responsible if anything would happen to the learner, the experimenter answered ‘I am responsible.’

Question 23

Who was Adolf Eichmann?

Answer 23

Adolf Eichmann (the Nazi responsible for the extermination of millions during WW2) saw himself as in the ‘agentic state’.

He stated that he was ‘only following orders’ of a higher-ranked authority and so was not responsible for the genocide.

Question 24

Milgram (1974) - in a ‘remote authority’ variation, the confederate researcher wasn’t in the same room as the teacher, but gave orders over the telephone.
In this variation, obedience declined

Answer 24

In this variation, obedience declined from 62.5% to 20.5%. It’s thought that when the researcher wasn’t in the room, participants shifted back into an autonomous state and saw themselves as responsible for their actions, hence the decline in obedience.

Question 25

Qualitative data: Milgram (1963) reported that many participants were under moral strain

Answer 25

• during debriefing they admitted that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but they continued to obey.

Question 26

Legitimate authority figure:

Answer 26

A person who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation.

Question 27

There is a tendency for people to accept definitions of a situation that are provided by a legitimate authority.
For example

Answer 27

the participant was aware from the verbal feedback that the ‘learner’ was in some pain/discomfort, but the experimenter (a legitimate authority) reassured them that the learner was fine and not in any danger, which a large proportion of participants accepted.

Question 28

How does location affect how legitimate the authority figure is perceived?

Answer 28

The location of an environment is proportional to the amount of perceived legitimate authority a person giving orders is seen to have
In locations that add to the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure i.e. institutionalised settings (e.g. universities, schools, military), obedience rates will be higher.

Question 29

How does uniform affect legitimacy of authority?

Answer 29

Uniforms convey power and authority, which can become symbolised in the uniform itself.
They can give a perception of added legitimacy to authority figures when delivering orders.
In Milgram’s experiment the confederate experimenter wore a grey lab coat to give him such an air of authority.

Question 30

Milgram (1963) reported:
Some participants ignored the learner’s apparent distress and instead focused on following the procedure by pressing the buttons properly. What does this suggest?

Answer 30

This suggests that participants were doing their perceived duty, with their obedience being a result of the perceived legitimate authority of the experimenter (because he was a scientist).

Question 31

Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in a run-down office block and found that obedience fell from 62.5% (delivering 450v shock) to 47.5%.
What does this suggest?

Answer 31

This suggests the change in location from Yale University (prestigious environment) reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure.

Question 32

Milgram’s variations of his procedure, performed after his main study identified several important situational factors:

Answer 32

Proximity
Location
Uniform

Question 33

What does proximity involve?

Answer 33

Proximity involves how aware individuals are of the consequences of their actions in obeying authority figures.

Milgram: When the physical distance between the teacher and the learner was made closer, participants were less able to divorce themselves from the consequences of their actions and so obedience rates were lower.

Question 34

What is the research into proximity?

Answer 34

Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and learner were in the same room as each other (proximity condition), so the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience declined from 62.5% to 40%.

When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate (touch proximity condition), increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience fell further to 30%.

The closer the physical proximity between the teacher and learner, the more aware the teacher became of the consequences of his actions, and the less able they were to obey the given orders.

Question 35

Milgram also found the proximity of the authority figure also had an effect on obedience rates

Answer 35

In a third proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone (remote instruction condition).
The outcome was a further reduction in obedience to 20.5%.
Some participants even went as far as repeatedly giving the weakest shock level or pretending to give shocks, despite telling the experimenter they were following the correct procedure.

Question 36

What influence does location have on influence?

Answer 36

The location of an environment can be relevant to the amount of perceived legitimate authority a person giving orders is seen to have.
In locations that add to the perceived legitimacy of an authority figure, obedience rates are likely to be higher.
Obedience rates are often highest in institutionalised settings where obedience is instilled into members i.e. in the army when a commanding officer orders a soldier to jump in the air, the expected response is ‘how high?’ not ‘why?’

Question 37

What is the research into Location?

Answer 37

Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in a run-down office building in Bridgeport, Conneticut, and found that obedience fell from 62.5% (delivering 450v shock) to 47.5%.
This suggests the change in location from Yale University (prestigious environment – an Ivy League, high-status institution) reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
The prestigious surroundings of Yale University gave participants confidence in the integrity of the people involved

Question 38

What influence does uniform have on obedience?

Answer 38

The wearing of uniforms can add to the perception of legitimacy of authority, thus increasing obedience rates.

In Milgram’s study, the confederate researcher wore a grey lab coat to give him an air of authority.

The grey lab coat conveyed power and authority, as a scientist.

Question 39

What is the research into uniform?

Answer 39

Bickman (1974)
When ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger for a parking meter or move away from a bus stop…
30% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes
47% when dressed as a milkman
76% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.

Question 40

What research did David Mandel (1998) do?

Answer 40

David Mandel (1998) argues that research into situational variables (proximity, location, uniform) offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour and that Milgram’s findings have led to an oversimplified explanation of the atrocities committed during the Holocaust.
Mandel argues that if we explain the horrific acts committed during the Holocaust according to situational factors, then we are overlooking other important factors that may have motivated the perpetrators, such as opportunities for professional advancement and lucrative personal gains.
Analysis of the behaviour of those responsible for killing and torturing Jews found some facts that were inconsistent with Milgram’s findings:
Perpetrators did not always require close supervision by their superiors.
Their behaviour was not inhibited by being exposed to the consequences of their actions i.e. pain and death of their victims.
They would continue to torture and kill even when offered the opportunity to stop.

Question 41

Mandel claims that Milgram’s conclusions about the situational determinants of obedience are not borne out by real-life events.

Answer 41

The Nazi soldiers who carried out the killings and deportations to death camps were proximal to their victims and used direct physical force against them – they heard their screams, saw their anguish and were often literally stained with their victims’ blood.

Question 42

On 13 July 1942, in Józefów, Poland, the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 received orders to carry out a mass killing of Jews.

Answer 42

Their commanding officer, Major Wilhelm Trapp, made an offer to his men that anyone who ‘didn’t feel up to’ this duty could be assigned other duties.
Despite the presence of factors shown by Milgram to increase defiance (e.g. close physical proximity to their victims and the presence of disobedient peers), only a small minority took up Trapp’s offer. The vast majority carried out their orders without protest.