Obedience Flashcards
Define obedience
This is a type of social influence where somebody acts in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority. The person who receives the order may also respond in a way that they would have not done without the order.
AO1: Milgram’s obedience study
Aim: To investigate if individuals would obey the orders of an authority figure even if this led to negative consequences.
Lab experiment at Yale university and was conducted on 40 American males ages 20-50.
Milgram placed an advert in a newspaper seeking volunteers for an experiment supposedly researching memory on learning. Participants drew lots which were rigged and the real participants was always the teacher and the confederate was always the learner.
The teacher had to electric shock the learner if they got a question wrong. Shocks began at 15V and increased in increments of 15 to 450V. The experimenter used prompts for the teacher if they refused: ‘Please continue’, ‘You have no other choice; you must go on.’
100% went to at least 300 volts, 12.5% stopped at this point. 65% went to the maximum 450 volts, showing high levels of obedience.
In conclusion ordinary people are obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way.
What are the three situational variables?
1) Proximity
2) Location
3) Power of uniform
AO1: Proximity
Proximity is the distance between the participant and the learner/experimenter. In Milgram’s original study the teacher couldn’t see the leaner only hear and obedience was 65%. When the teacher had to force the learners hand onto the electric shock plate, touch proximity, obedience decreased to 30%. When the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher over the phone obedience fell to 20.5%. This suggests the closer an authority figure is to an individual, the more obedient the researcher will be.
AO1: Location
The original experimented was conducted in a prestigious university, Yale university and obedience levels were 65%. When the location changed to a run down office obedience dropped to 48%. This is because when the location was changed to a run down office, the amount of perceived legitimate authority the experimenter had was reduced.
AO1: Power of Uniform
Wearing a uniform can give a perception of added legitimate authority to the person giving orders. In Milgram’s original study the researcher wore a grey lab coat which gave him an air of authority, and obedience was 65%. When the experimenter was taken over by an ordinary member of the public who wore everyday clothes obedience fell to 20%. This suggests uniform acts as a strong visual authority symbol and a cue to act in an obedient manner. When not in uniform the perceived legitimate authority of the experimenter was reduced.
What are the 3 evaluations for situational variables of obedience?
1) RTS - Bickman - uniform
2) Gender bias
3) Alternative explanation - Dispositional factors
AO3: RTS - Uniform (Situational)
Research to support situational variables affecting obedience was a field experiment conducted by Bickman. He had confederates dress in three different outfits (a security guard, a milkman, and a businessman) and ask passers-by to give money to pay for parking or pick up litter. It was found that participants were twice as likely to follow the instructions of the confederate wearing a security guard uniform than the businessman. This supports the power of uniform as participants were more likely to follow these orders because uniform acted as a visual cue for legitimate authority, so obedience increases. Therefore, increasing the validity of uniform as situational variable affecting obedience.
AO3: Gender bias (situational)
Milgram’s research into situational variables affecting obedience has gender bias, as a male only sample was used. This may mean it is difficult to generalise the findings to females, as they may have obeyed differently to the variables affecting obedience, for example, some research suggests females may be more obedient regardless of the situational variable because their gender roles may dictate that they be more submissive. For example, Sheridan & King found that when ordered to give electric shocks to a puppy, females obeyed 100% of the time, compared to 54% of male participants. This weakens the external validity of research into situational variables affecting obedience as the variables may affect obedience in some people more than others.
AO3: Alternative explanation (situational)
An alternative explanation for obedience is dispositional factors (internal factors) e.g. The Authoritarian Personality. This would argue that obedience is due to internal characteristics of the person e.g. their personality, rather than situational factors. Therefore, this suggests that obedience may not just be due to proximity, location and uniform (external factors). This weakens the research into situational variables affecting obedience, as it is not the sole explanation.
What are the two explanations for obedience?
1) Agentic state
2) Legitimacy of authority
AO1: Legitimacy of authority
Obedience increases when a person perceives that an authority figure has perceived legitimate authority e.g. parents, teachers and police officers and see them as being in charge. The authority they have is legitimate in the sense its agreed by society. We accept their credentials and believe they know what they’re doing. It is ingrained in us to obey these people even when the order is unethical.
AO1: Agentic state
Obedience increases when a person is in the agent state. When they receives an order from an authority figure an agent shift occurs where they move from a state where they take personal responsibility for their actions (autonomous state) to a state where they believe there acting on behalf of an authority figure (agents state). This is known as the agent shift. When an individual is in an agentic state they lose a sense of personal responsibility and no loner feel guilty as they believe they’re carrying out the orders of a more knowledgeable authority figures. Therefore a person in an agent state will be more likely to obey.
What are the evaluations for explanations of obedience (3)
1) RTS agent state - Milgram
2) RTS Hofling - hopsital ward
3) Alternative explanation - dispositional factors
AO3: RTS Milgram (explanation)
Research to support the agentic state as an explanation of obedience to authority was shown in Milgram’s obedience studies. Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter questions such as ‘Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?’. When the experimenter responded ‘I am responsible’ the participant often continued to obey and give the electric shocks. This supports the agentic state as an explanation of obedience as once the participants no longer believed they were responsible, due to the experimenter taking responsibility, they were more obedient as an agentic shift had occurred. Therefore, increasing the validity of agentic state as an explanation of obedience.
AO3: RTS - Hofling (explanation)
Further, research to support the explanations for obedience to authority was conducted by Hofling. He conducted a study using nurses on a hospital ward who were ordered by an unknown doctor to give a dangerous dose of a drug to patients via a telephone. 21 out of the 22 nurses agreed to give the medication even though they knew not to take orders over the phone. Therefore, supports legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience because the doctor had more authority than the nurses, moreover, it could also support the agentic state as the nurses may have felt that the doctors were ultimately responsible as the authority figure, and this is why they obeyed. Therefore, increasing the validity of agentic state and legitimacy of authority as explanations of obedience.
AO3: Alternative explanation (explanations)
An alternative explanation for obedience is dispositional factors (internal factors) e.g. The Authoritarian Personality. This would argue that obedience is due to internal characteristics of the person e.g. their personality, for example having extreme respect for authority due to their upbringing. RATHER THAN obeying due to perceiving the authority figure as legitimate / losing a sense of personal responsibility. Therefore, this suggests that obedience may not just be due to legitimacy of authority and the agentic state. This weakens the explanations of obedience, as they are not the sole explanations.
AO1: Dispositional explanation
Adorno proposed the dispositional explanation as an explanation of obedience, It is an internal explanation for obedience and focus on the idea that certain characteristics are linked to higher obedience levels.
The authoritarian personality is a collection of personality traits and is said to develop from strict parenting through childhood e.g. extreme disciple, making them more obedient to an authority figure.
The personality traits include showing extreme respect and submission for perceived authority as they seem them as superior, increasing their obedience rates. They have black and white thinking and have strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies, increasing obedience further. The Authoritarian Personality was assessed using the F scale questionnaire by Adorno on a sample of 2000 American participants. Those who scored highly on the questionnaire displayed the characteristics described above and are more obedient.
What are the evaluations for the dispositional explanation? (3 + think further)
1) RTS - Milgram and Elms - F scale
2) Think further - Characteristics
3) Social desirability
4) Alternative explanation - Situational
AO3: RTS Milgram and Elms (dispositional)
Research to support the authoritarian personality was conducted by Milgram & Elms, who interviewed participants who had taken part in Milgram’s experiment and asked them to complete the F scale questionnaire to measure their levels of authoritarianism. They found higher levels of authoritarianism among those participants classified as obedient (who gave electric shocks to 450V) compared with those classified as defiant. This support the dispositional explanation because it shows how internal factors such as personality can lead to increased levels of obedience. Therefore, increasing the validity of the dispositional explanation for obedience.
Think further - Milgram (dispositional)
However, the obedient participants in Milgram’s research had a number of characteristics not typical in someone who has an authoritarian personality. For example, Milgram’s obedient participants did not experience a high level of punishment in childhood. This suggests the link between obedience and the authoritarian personality is complex and may not be a useful predictor of obedience.
AO3: Social desirability (dispositional)
The research conducted by Adorno et al into the authoritarian personality can be criticised for having social desirably bias. Participants may have exaggerated their racist views on the F scale questionnaire to present themselves in the best possible light. As they completed the questionnaire just after WWII in 1950) so they may have maximised racist views to look more obedient. Therefore Adorno ay not be measuring what he set out to measure e.g. Authoritarian Personality. Casting doubt on the Authoritarian Personality as an explanation of obedience.
AO3 - Alternative explnation (dispositional)
An alternative explanation for obedience is situational factors. This would argue that obedience is due to external factors for example, obedience increases when the authority figure is wearing a uniform. RATHER THAN internal factors such as an authoritarian personality where the individual has extreme respect for authority due to harsh parenting in childhood. Therefore, suggesting that obedience may not just be due to an authoritarian personality (internal factors). This weakens the research into dispositional factors as an explanation for obedience as it is not the sole explanation.
