Obedience Flashcards
Milgram situational variables - what are they?
Proximity, location, uniform.
What happens if proximity increases?
Obedience decreases. The authority figure is disobeyed.
Evidence for proximity
Compared to original study in which learner and teacher were in adjoining rooms, they were in the same room. Obedience dropped to 40% from 65% and to 30% in a variation where learner hand was forced onto an electric shock plate.
How does uniform affect obedience?
If a non-professional uniform is worn, it is not seen as having authority as not recognised as a symbol of authority.
Evidence for uniform
Baseline study, experimenter wore grey lab coat (uniform widely recognised as symbol of authority so encourages obedience). But in variation the experimenter was called away and role was taken over by member of the public in ‘everyday clothes’ and obedience dropped to 20%
How did location affect milgrams study?
The baseline study was held in a prestigious university setting but in a variation it was conducted in a run down building. The experimenter had less authority and obedience fell to 47%. If the location is less authoritative, people feel more able to disobey the authority figure.
What is the autonomous state?
Free to behave according to an individuals own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Opposite of being in an agentic state.
What is an agentic state?
A mental state where we feels no personal responsibility for our own behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. This reduces guilt and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
What is the agentic shift?
When a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority and shifts from autonomy to agency.
Legitimacy of authority.
Suggests we are more likely to obey people we perceive to have authority over us. Justified by their position within a social hierarchy and our own.
It can be increased by visible symbols e.g uniform.
Strengths of social-psychological explanations of obedience (agentic state, legitimacy of authority)
+ Blass & Schmidt - students were shown a film of milgrams study and blamed experimenter for the harm rather than participant. (Teacher)
+ can be used to explain real life war crimes, My Lai massacre
+ research support - Milgram’s research where the participants resisted giving the shocks until they asked who’s responsible for the harm of the learner and he said it was him so they continued with no further objections. In conclusion, once they realised they were not reliable for their behaviour, they acted easier.
What happened in the My Lai Massacre?
Lt William Calley ordered his men to murder the unarmed Vietnamese villagers. Men carried out the command. At the military trial, Calley did not accept his guilt using the defence that he had been following the orders of his superior.
Limitation of social - psychological factors (agentic state, legitimacy of authority)
To do with credibility
- reduced credibility as legitimacy of authority cannot explain when obedience occurs in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. For example in Milgram’s study when some participants still disobeyed despite being aware of the experimenters authority. Suggests that some people may just be more obedient or less obedient than others
Aims of Milgram’s study
How far people would obey to an instruction from an authority figure even if it involves harming another person.
Procedures in Milgram’s study
40 male participants aged 20-50 years.
Volunteer sample - believed they were voluntarily participating in a study on memory and learning
Participants were paired with a confederate in a rigged draw and both slips said teacher so real participant was always teacher
Teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to confederate for any incorrect answers to a memory task. Learners did not receive electric shocks but teacher was made to believe they had.
Experimenter was played by an actor in the room with teacher who instructed them to administer the electric shocks.
Findings of Milgram’s study
• 65% participants continued to the highest level of 450 V
• all participants went up to at least 300 V
14 participants stopped early (between 300 and 370)
Participants often showed signs of extreme tension and discomfort including sweating, nervous laughter, trembling and stuttering.
Conclusion from Milgram’s study
(4)
•People appear to be very obedient to authority figures. •Ordinary individuals are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure even to the extent of potentially causing harm to an innocent human.
•When people are given orders to act destructively they will experience high levels of stress and anxiety
• People are willing to harm someone if the responsibility is taken away from them and passed onto someone else.
Research point to support uniform situational variable
Bickman experiment supports the idea of uniform conveying authority and producing obedience. Out of three people in uniform (milkman, jacket and tie and security guard) people were more likely to obey the security guard
Evaluation of Research point on situational variables (Milligram)
Lack of internal validity in Milgram’s study as the participants could have thought the shocks were fake.
Credibility strength of situational variables
Replicated in other cultures. Obedience rate over 90% in Spanish students. Suggests Milgram’s conclusions are not limited to American males but valid to other cultures too.
Counterpoint to credibility strength of cross cultural replication
Smith and Bond said most replications were in developed societies that weren’t very culturally different to USA
Alternative explanation point of situational variables
Presence of social psychological factors reduces the strength of situational variables when explaining obedience
What are binding factors?
Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
