Obedience Flashcards
What is obedience?
carrying out the instructions of an authority figure
What was the aim of Milgram’s study?
To investigate whether ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in authority (lab coat) to inflict pain on another person
What was the method of Milgram’s study
- 40 volunteers from different backgrounds were told they were tsking part in a study on the role of punishment on learning at Yale university
- Ppts were allocated the role of teacher and they were told a learner (confederate) had to memorise word pairs
- The teacher tested the learners on their ability to remember the word pair by giving them the first word of the pair
- Ppts were told to administer electric shocks to the learner each time and then got an answer wrong. Shocks started at a low voltage and increased to a max of 450 volts - shocks weren’t real
- The experimenter was overseeing the ppt in the same room and was dressed in a white lab coat, when the ppts began to hesitate the experimenter encouraged him with a series of ‘prods’ - such as ‘please continue and ‘you have no other choice you must go on’
What were the results of Milgrams study
- All ppts administered shocks of at least 300 volts despite some of them being extremely anxious.
- 65% administered the full 450-volts.
- Ppts showed signs of extreme tension including sweating trembling and digging nails into their hands.
- 3 ppts had full blown uncontrollable seizures
What was the conclusion of Milgram’s study
Under certain circumstances ppts will obey an authority figure even when they feel uncomfortable doing so
What are strengths of Milgram’s study
- Research support (Beauvois et al)
- Historical valid
- Used real shocks
What are limitations of Milgram’s study
- Low ecological validity
- Ethical issues
- Low internal validity
Evaluate research support as a strength of MIlgram’s study
P: Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary made about reality TV.
E: The documentary focussed on a game show made especially for the programme. The participants in the ‘game’ believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show. They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (actorsy) in front of a studio audience. 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants - nervous laugher, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety.
E: This supports the validity of Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority and demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances
Evaluate the fact that another study used real shocks as a strength of Milgram’s study
P: Supported by research.
E: Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s. In this study, participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter. Despite the real distress of the animal, 54% of the male participants and 100% of the females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
E: Strength because it suggests that the effects of Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.
Evaluate low ecological validity as a limitation of Milgram’s study
P: Criticised for having low ecological validity.
E: The experiment was conducted in an unfamiliar controlled environment and the task was artificial because it involved giving strangers electric shocks which is not a normal everyday task.
E: Limitation because the results may be difficult to generalise to real life situations of obedience such as following orders from your boss at work.
Further: However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Milgram’s participants did react to the situation as if it was real for example, many of them showed signs of stress such as nervous laughter, sweating, and trembling and therefore it could be argued that the study does have ecological validity to an extent
Evaluate ethical issues as a limitation of Milgram’s study
P: There are ethical issues with his procedure.
E: Milgram deceived his participants in many ways: they did not know that they weren’t giving real electric shocks or that the experimenter and learner were confederates or the real aim of the study or that it was fixed so that they were the teacher. Participants therefore could not give informed consent.
Also, Milgram did not protect his participants from psychological harm as they became very stressed at the thought of giving a stranger electric shocks. For example, participants showed signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously, biting lips and digging fingernails into palms of hands.
E: This is a limitation because it would go against the current BPS ethical guidelines for conducting psychological research.
Further: However, Milgram did interview his participants after the study and the majority said that they were pleased to have been involved in the study.
Milgram would also argue it was necessary to deceive his participants because if they knew the real aim of the study, this would cause the participants to change their behaviour and show demand characteristics (e.g. not obey) and therefore the findings about obedience would not be valid and suggest people are less obedient than they are actually are
Evaluate low internal validity as a limitation of Milgram’s study
P: The procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.
E: Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine. However, Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn’t believe the shocks were real and so were ‘play acting’.
Perry (2013) confirms this after studying the tapes of Milgram’s participants and reports that only about half of the participants believed the shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient.
E: This is a limitation because it suggests the participants may have been responding to demand
What are situational variables?
features of the physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour
What is proximity
The physical closeness/distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
Also the physical closeness of the teacher to the victim
What is location
The place where the order is issued
What is uniform
people in positions of authority have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority
How was obedience affected when the authority figure wore ordinary clothes and why?
Decreased - 20% went to 450 volts
Uniforms encourage obedience because they’re widely recognised as symbols of authority. We believe someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate
How did obedience change when the location was in run down offices and why?
Decreased - 47.5% going up to 450
The prestigious university environment gave the study legitimate authority and they believed the experimenter shared this authority.
When the location has no integrity it lowered peoples confidence in the authority figure as it reduces their legitimacy
However absence was still quite high bc ppts still perceived the scientific nature of the procedure
How was obedience affected when the teacher and learner were in the same room
Decreased - 40% went to 450 volts
How was obedience affected when the teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate?
Decreased - 30% went to 450 votls
How was obedience affected when the teacher and authority figure were in different rooms
Decreased - 21% went to 450 volts
some even lied to the experimenter and kept giving the weakest shock level
Why does conformity decrease as proximity decreases
Decreased proximity allows people to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions psychologically
When teacher and learner are physically separated the teacher is less aware of the harm they are causing so they are more obedient
When the teacher is closer they experience the learners anguish more directly and therefore unlikely to experience the agentic state
What are strengths of Situational variables
- Research support (Bickman)
- Cross cultral representations
- High control
What are limitations of situational variables
- Low population validity
- Low internal validity
- Ignores dispositional factors
Evaluate research support as a strength of situational variables
P: Other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience.
E: Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in NYC where three confederates dressed in different outfits - a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. The confederates individually stood on the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie.
E: This is a strength because it supports the validity of the claim that uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience
Evaluate low population validity as a limitation of situational variables
P: Low population validity.
E: The participants in Milgram’s study were all American males and therefore were not representative of all people. For example, it could be that Americans or males are more/less obedient compared to other people.
E: This is a limitation because the results about location affecting obedience may not be able to be generalised to the behaviours of others, for example, females or people from other countries (low external validity).
Evaluate low internal validity as a limitation of situational variables
P: Ppts may have been aware the procedure was faked.
E: Orne and Holland (1968) argued this even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables. For example, when the Experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may have worked out the truth.
E: This is a limitation because in all of Milgram’s studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and responded to demand characteristics by playing along.
Evaluate ignoring dispositional factors as a limitation of situational variables
P: May not be a complete explanation for obedience.
E: Mandel (1998) argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders.
In addition, Milgram’s explanation ignores the role of dispositional factors (such as personality), implying that the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control. Research has suggested obedience could be influenced by having an Authoritarian Personality formed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting.
Middendorp et al (1990) found that participants with lower levels of education tend to be more
obedient than those with higher levels of education.
E: This is a limitation because it suggests the validity of Milgram’s situational explanations of obedience may be limited and other factors that are not situational may play a role in situations of obedience.
Evaluate cross cultural representations as s strength of situational variables
P: His findings have been replicated in other cultures.
E: Meeus et al (1986) studied obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed. The researchers also found that when the person giving the orders not present (a change to the proximity), obedience decreased dramatically.
E: Strength because it suggests Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or males, but are across cultures and apply to females too.
Evaluate high control as a
