Obedience Flashcards
What is obedience?
Form of social influence
Individual follows direct order from (perceived) authority figure
Person would not always respond this way without this order
What was the aim of Milgrims research into obedience and the power of an authority figure?
To investigate power of authority figure and see if ordinary people would obey morally wrong demands of a perceived legitimate authority figure
To test the Germans are different hypothesis (claims Germans are highly obedient and had unquestioned cooperation to Hitler)
Outline the procedure of Milgrims study?
Lab experiment at Yale University
Volunteer sample of 40 male participants, aged 20-50, paid $4.50
The real participant was the teacher and the learner and experimenter were both confederates
Learner gave wrong answers and received fake shocks
Learner in different room and cried out after each shock
Started at 15V and went up in 15V increments up to 450V
Experimenter gave verbal prods eg please continue if participant wanted to leave
What were the findings of Milgrims study into obedience?
All participants obeyed and gave shocks up to at least 300V
12.5% of participants stopped at 300V
65% continued up to 450V
What did Milgrims conclude from his study into obedience?
Ordinary people will obey authority even when they know what they are doing is wrong
Whilst some criminals are evil people, some are just ordinary people following orders
How did the variable of proximity effect obedience?
Proximity: physical closeness to authority figure
Variation: experimenter gave orders to teacher via telephone rather than in same room
Obedience rates: dropped to 20.5% from 65%
Why did this influence obedience?
More likely to obey authority in original as participant in agentic state (experimenter takes on responsibility / diffusion of responsibility
In variation participant in autonomous state as experimenter was further away, therefore they’re less likely to obey
What is the agentic state?
Acting as an agent on behalf of someone else
What is the autonomous state?
Having normal morals and person believes they are responsible for their own actions
How did the variable of location influence Milgrims study?
Variation: location can affect the ways a request is viewed for example the original study was at Yale (a high status university)
Different location: repeated study in a run down office block instead of at Yale
Obedience rates: dropped to 48% from 65%
Why did this influence obedience?
The original location adds to legitimacy of authority figure and gives participant confidence in the integrity of the people involved
In a less prestigious location, fewer people obey as they do not value the experiment with the same integrity as at Yale
How does the variable of uniform influence obedience?
Variation: clothing authority figure wears can affect how they are perceived
Bickman: during Bickmans (1974) field experiment in NYC, passers by were given orders eg lend money to stranger for parking meter, stand at another place at the bus stop, pick up some litter
Experimenter dressed as security guard and in normal clothes
Obedience rates:
Uniform 82% obedience
Normal 36% obedience
Why did this influence obedience?
Uniforms are easily recognisable, convey power and authority and offer a sense of legitimacy
How is the control of variables a strength of Milgrims research into obedience? (E)
A strength of the research into situational variables affecting obedience is can make direct comparisons between obedience levels in each variation
Eg when comparing the locations, all other variables were standardised so we can conclude that drop in obedience in the run down office block was due to location change, giving a cause an effect
How is internal validity a limitation of Milgrims research into obedience?
Orne and Holland criticised Milgrims research as they thought participants were “going along with the act” and did not believe the shocks were real
They argued participants were not distressed but pretending to please the experimenter (demand characteristics)
This questions internal validity as experiment is measuring how the participants play along with the request rather than measuring the effect of situational variables on obedience directly
However, Milgrim argued that participants believed shocks were real as he has evidence form debriefing sessions where they admitted to believing the shocks were real
Also participants were visibly distressed in film evidence
What is ecological validity?
Can we generalise this research to different places / different countries
How is the external validity a limitation of Milgrims research into obedience?
Ecological validity low as in highly controlled lab setting
Baumrind said we can’t generalise these findings to real life as the study was carried out at Yale
Population validity low as used male volunteers (volunteers not representative eg more helpful)
Could be differences in how females respond to authority (eg more obedient)
His suggests research has low external validity as it lacks both ecological and population validity there for ewe should take caution when generalising these findings
How Is research support a strength of Milgrims research into obedience?
Hofling et als (1996) field experiment in hospital supports Milgrims research
Nurse were phoned by fake doctors and ordered to give a dangerously high dose of a drug to a patient
95% / 21 out of 22 obeyed
Therefore the demands of an authority figure are powerful, even in a different setting to a lab
However nurses were less obedient when they discussed action with other nurses and when the drug was well known
Only 11% obeyed
What is population validity?
Does the research apply to everyone eg different races and genders
How is reliability a strength of Milgrims research into obedience?
A strength is the study was repeated many times all showing high obedience levels
Eg on french to show “Le Jeu de la Mort” where participants gave fake shocks to actors when ordered to by presenter in front of an audience, 80% gave max shock of 380V to an “unconscious man”
Participants showed similar signs of anxiety to Milgrims study
This shows study was not one off occurrence and ha good reliability
Evaluate how deception was limitation of Milgrims study?
Participants deceived as told study on effects of punishment on learning and they believed the learner was also a naive participant not a confederate
Therefore participant can’t give fully informed consent
Milgrims argued deception necessary to avoid demand characteristics which would cause findings to have low internal validity
Milgrim debriefed participants and reassured them which could justify deception
Evaluate how the right to withdraw was unclear during Milgrims study?
At start they were told could withdraw at any point and keep money, however during study when participant expressed desire to leave experimenter gave verbal prods eg please continue so they felt they had no choice
Therefore the right to withdraw was unclear which is ethically unacceptable
Evaluate whether the participants in Milgrims study were protected from harm?
Baumrind criticised research as participants not protected from psychological harm as they were under distress
However 84% of participants claim they were “glad to have taken part” and 74% say they “learned something about themselves”
Baumrind claimed they would suffer permanent psychological harm eg loss of self esteem and distrust of authority however psychiatric examinations from 1 year later showed no signs of psychological damage
What is the Agentic shift?
Changing from being in an autonomous state to being in an Agentic state
Outline the Agentic state
Individual acts on behalf of someone else and feels they have diminished personal responsibility
Individual doesn’t feel guilty for actions because they are agents of others (usually of higher status)
Outline the autonomous state
Individual assumes full responsibility for their behaviours and actions
They are guided by their own values, beliefs and principles
Which state are we more likely to obey authority in?
We are more likely to obey authority in Agentic state as we are acting as an agent on behalf of an authority figure
Therefore, we see authority as responsible for any behaviours and consequences (diffusion of responsibility)
Evaluate the agentic state explanation for obedience with research support
In milgrims variation when obedience dropped to 20.5% from 65% when the experimenter gave instructions to teacher over the phone instead of being in the same room (explained by the agentic shift)
In the original the teacher was acting on behalf of experimenter and mindlessly accepting orders and passing over the responsibility
Whereas in variation obedience was lower as the participant was in autonomous state therefore felt higher personal responsibility
Evaluate the agentic state as an explanation for obedience using a real life example
People have used agentic state in defence of their actions in real life eg Adolf Eichmann (Nazi commander responsible for genocide in concentration camps)
In trial his defence was he was “only following orders” (he saw himself in agentic state obeying a higher rank)
Eichmann was executed for his crimes however this shows this defence can be and is used by real criminals
Outline the legitimacy of authority as a situational explanation for obedience
Legitimacy of authority is the amount of perceived social power held by the person giving instructions
There is a hierarchy and we are socialised to obey individuals that society gives the right to demand obedience eg teachers, police officers etc
People with social status have the power to punish us or we trust the instructions they give due to expertise
Uniform conveys legitimate authority
Evaluate the legitimacy of authority explanation for obedience using research support
In milgrims original lab experiment the experimenter wore a white coat to convey legitimacy and authority and obedience was high at 65% so the perceived legitimacy had effect on participants
Further support is Bickmans (1974) field experiment in NYC where he asked passers by to pick up rubbish or lend money to a stranger for a parking meter
As security guard 82% obeyed due to legitimacy uniform portrayed
In normal clothes 36% obeyed
Obedience increases if person seems legitimate
Evaluate how cultural differences link to the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
Strength of this explanation is it explains why there are cultural differences in obedience
The degree that countries are traditionally obedient to authority differs eg Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgrims study in Australia and only 16% went to top voltage scale
Mantell (1971) Germany found 85% obedience
This shows some in cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate
This reflects how societies are structured and how children are raised to percieve authority
Supportive findings like these from cross cultural research increases the internal validity of this explanation
What is a limitation of both the agentic state and legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience?
A limitation of agentic state and legitimacy of authority is they don’t consider other factors which influence obedience levels eg dispositional factors eg having authoritarian traits or situational variables like proximity
This is a limitation as the situational explanations fail to acknowledge the complexity of factors affecting obedience eg personality
What does dogmatic mean?
A strong expression of opinions, as if facts
Evaluate the Authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience using Adornos research support
Adorno et als F scale supports the dispositional explanation for obedience eg “obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”
You can strongly agree or strongly disagree
People who scored highly on the F scale identified with strong people and were hostile to the weak
There’s a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
Authoritarian personality types had a cognitive thinking style with fixed stereotypes about other groups
Evaluate the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience using Milgrims and Elms ‘s research support
They interviewed a sample of participants from Milgrims study and those who were fully obedient and went up to 450V scored higher on the F scale than those who defied the experimenter
Additionally, Zillmer et al (1955) reported 16 Nazi war criminals scored highly on the F scale
This provides reliable support to the theory that an authoritarian personality increases obedience
Evaluate the authoritarian personality explanation using the methodological criticisms of Adornos research
A limitation is the methodology used
Adorno measured a range of variables and found significant correlations however strong correlation as between 2 variables does not mean that one causes the other
Therefore, the link between authoritarianism and obedience is only correlational and we can’t draw a conclusion that an authoritarian personality causes obedience, just that there is a relationship
What is a limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation for obedience
Refer to it being over simplistic
Limitation of the dispositional explanation is it attempts to explain the complex human personality and complex behaviour of obedience in a simple way by assuming a correlation is evidence for cause and effect
It also ignores others factors eg level of eduction
Middendorp and Meloen (1990) found less educated people are more authoritarian
Also consider situational variables eg proximity, location and uniform
Therefore we need a more holistic view which acknowledges both situational and dispositional factors
