Obedience Flashcards
Obedience
Changing our behaviour in response to direct orders from a perceived authority figure or the rules and laws of society
Milgram’s electric shock study
40 male Americans who volunteered
Study took place in Milgrams lab at Yale uni
Participants would always be teacher and confederates would be the learner
Shock machine would increase by 15V every time there was an incorrect answer up to 450V
The experimenter used 4 prods to order teacher to continue
Milgrams findings
All participants went to 300V
12.5% stopped at 300V
65% went to highest 450V which is lethal.
Observations showed extreme signs of distress, sweating.
Three participants reported as having full blown seizures.
They were debriefed after experiment - 84% said they were happy to have taken part.
Milgrams conclusions
People did obey instructions given to them by perceived authority figure
His idea that it was the German people including Nazi soldiers that were inherently more obedient was proven false
The American citizens in a study were equally as obedient
Ethical issues in Milgrams study
Informed consent - volunteers weren’t given all info regarding obedience task so couldn’t give consent
Deception - volunteers not told that experiment and learners were confederates. Also not told that shock machine was fake.
Protection from harm - some had seizures
Privacy - known recordings of experiment so we can see the men that took part
Right to withdraw- Ps encouraged to continue by the experimenter
Evaluation of Milgram
Strength
Supported by other studies
P: supported by other studies
E: Hopling arranged for an unknown doctor to ring 22 nurses and ask them individually to administer an overdose of a drug that wasn’t on their ward list. 95% of nurses went to administer the drug.
C: proves that peoples actions are influenced by figures that we think are authoritative. Increases reliability as both studies have similar findings so can be generalised to most of the population.
Evaluation of Milgram
Strength
Conducted in lab setting
P: conducted in lab setting
E: researcher had high control over EVs eg. age, noise.
Milgram also used standardised procedures e.g. the participants were always the teacher
C: Milgram was able to establish a C+E relationship e.g. an authoritative figure caused obedience in participants. Using standardised procedures increases reliability.
Limitation of Milgram study
Artificial environment
P: artificial environment
E: Ps may have realised that the learner wasn’t actually being shocked so went up to the higher voltages - DCs.
C: lack ecological validity so they can’t be generalised every day life.
The results from this study do not tell as much about obedience in real life
Limitation of Milgrams study
Sample
P: sample only consisted of US males
E: Androcentric sample - only contains men. So results can’t be generalised to women
C: Milgrams work displays Beta bias as we are ignoring any possible differences between men and women. We don’t know if women would be obedient in the same way
Milgrams variations
Milgram conducted variations of his experiment
He wanted to see how these variations affected obedience rates
- proximity - location - uniform
Milgrams variations
Proximity - teacher and authority figure
Milgram changed how close the teacher was away from the authority figure (experiment in white lab coat)
Experimenter left the room and gave orders over the phone – obedience dropped to 20.5%
participant may have felt that there wasn’t an immediate threat of physical punishment if they disobeyed + may have felt more in control
Milgrams variations
Proximity - teacher and learner
Milgram had the teacher and learner in the same room so they could see each other - obedience dropped to 40%.
This drop and obedience is probably caused by the teacher seeing the learner in pain which may have caused guilt so they would stop pressing the buzzer.
Milgrams variations
Uniform
In original experiment, the white lab coat symbolised authority
In this variation he used to confederate in normal clothes - obedience dropped to 20%
When uniform is taken away, symbol of authority is lost so participant thinks they don’t have to obey them
Milgrams variations
Location
Milgram moved from the lab at Yale Uni to a rundown building
Obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%
When location is moved from prestigious uni to rundown building the participants may have felt less trusting of environment so felt inclined to disobey experimenter
Strength of Milgrams variations
Conducted in controlled setting
P: conducted in controlled setting
E: this means that he would have high control over EVs
C: he could establish a C+E relationship. Eg it allowed Milgram to establish a relationship between the presence of a uniform symbolising authority and the obedience roles in participants
Strength of Milgram variations
Repeated around the world
P: repeated around the world (cross cultural research)
E: one replication found that Spanish students shared a 90% obedience rate when asked to administer electric shocks to the learner
C: it shows that obedience rates are high across the world. We can argue that Milgrams replications have reliability as consistent results have been found as well as in different countries.
Limitation of Milgrams variations
Replications take place in Western cultures
P: the replications tend to take place in individualistic (western) cultures eg Spain
E: individualistic cultures tend to focus on the well-being of the individual rather than the group, therefore seen as culturally different
C: we therefore don’t know whether obedience would be affected by location, proximity and uniform around the world. so the findings can’t be generalised to all countries
Limitation of Milgrams variations
Lack internal validity
P: they lack internal validity as did his original study
E: researchers have argued that even in his variation studies that participants guessed that the electric shocks were fake. This shows demand characteristics having an effect on results gained and in his variation studies It was more likely to have been seen.
C: Milgram didn’t measure what he set out to eg how location affects obedience as the change in participants behaviour negatively skewed his results
Explanations of obedience
1. Agentic state
When people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off their responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the order - more likely to obey
Autonomous state
The autonomous state is when people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the result of those actions - less likely to obey
The agentic shift happens when people move from a state of autonomy towards an agentic state
Strength of agentic state
Supportive evidence
P: Blass and Schmitt showed students a video of Milgrams study and asked ‘who was responsible for any harm caused?’ They said ‘the experimenter’ as he was in charge
E: they believed that the blame and responsibility was solely the authority figures
C: this supports the theory as it shows that responsibility was shifted onto authority figure and Ps we’re acting as agents
Limitation of agentic state
Why some people resist
P: it does not explain why some people resist the pressure to obey
E: it can’t explain why some situations or individual differences make it easier for some to resist eg it can’t explain why 12.5% of people resisted pressure to obey and stopped at 300V
C: incomplete explanation of obedience
Explanations of obedience
2. Legitimacy of authority
More likely to obey people we perceive to have authority over us due to their position of power
To be put into agentic state you must be following orders of authority figure. You follow the instructions and place all responsibility on authority figure
Strength of legitimacy of authority
Real life application
P: real life application eg Mai Lai massacre
E: during Vietnam war, under orders US army attacked a village. Homes set on fire, raped women etc. 175-500 people died. When on trial the soldiers claimed they were just following orders from high ranking officers
C: lower ranking soldiers accepted higher ranks as legitimate authority figure.
