Obedience Flashcards
What is conforming?
It is the concept of doing something which is against an individual’s own inclination, but not doing it with the intention of matching the behaviour of the majority
What is meant by internalising?
Internalising is obeying with agreement
What is compliance?
It means you go along with what someone says while not necessarily agreeing with it. This is more common among peers than those in authoritative positions
Aim of the Milgram (1963) study
The aim of the study was to test if volunteering participants would give electric shocks go someone they thought was just another participant and see whether they would administer a lethal shock. Also to see whether Germans were more susceptible to obeying authority than other people.
What was the procedure of the study?
- Milgram advertised for participants and told them that they were taking part in an experiment on human learning.
- A confederate who was as actor was the learner and was to receive fake shocks which the participants believed were real, after the participant was administered a 45V Shock before the experiment.
- The participant and the confederate drew lots to decide who would be the learner, this was rigged so that the confederate was always the learner and participant the teacher
- The confederate was being strapped into a chair as the participant watched. The participant was then shown the generator, with switches from 15V to 450V.
- The participant was to move one switch each time the learner gave a wrong answer, the shocks started at 15V and every time there was a wrong answer, it went up in 15V increments.
- If the participant refused, then they were given a prompt by the experimenter
- If 450V was reached, then participants were to continue with that switch then the study will stop as the participant would think the confederate was in a bad way so the study will have stopped.
What were the prompts and their orders
1st Please continue/ Please go on
2nd The experiment requires that you continue
3rd It is absolutely essential that you continue
4th You have no other choice- you must go on
What were the results of the study?
26/40 men continued to the end, 14 participants stopped before 450V, 65% obeyed to 450V and 100% obeyed to 300V
Conclusion of the study? And reasons as to why obedience occurred
- The participant was paid and so felt an obligation
- It was thought that the shocks were painful, but not dangerous
- Yale University is a prestigious institution and unlikely to allow anything unethical
Strengths of the study?
- Had controlled procedures which meant the study was replicable and it could be tested for reliability, other studies like Burger (2009) replicate the study but somewhat more ethical
- Milgram carried out a very well-controlled procedure, he set prompts in a set order and had prepared the victim’s responses carefully. He made every effort to make the experience of each participant the same, to avoid any bias. Obedience was due to a response to an authority figure and it’s unlikely another factor led to these results, this meant that cause and effect conclusions could be drawn.
What are the weaknesses of the study
- There are ethical problems with regard to repeating the study, Milgram had not expected they would not participate to the level they did, so he didn’t expect the high levels of anxiety and stress. He described shaking, trembling, sweating and seizures, so it’s undeniable it was unethical
- In theory, he gave the right to withdraw because participants could leave anytime but he pressurised participants to stay using prompts, making withdrawal very difficult. He deceived participants by saying that the study was about learning learning and by pretending that the shocks we’re real. He gained consent and asked for volunteers. However the consent he obtained was not fully informed because of the deceit
What was experiment 7?
Where the experimenter’s instructions ate given by tape and the participants can speak to the experimenter who is not in the room by phone
Results- 22.5% continued to the end (9/40)
What is experiment 10?
Held in the Research Associates of Bridgeport offices, in a rundown office building
Results// 47.5% obeyed (19 out of 40)
What is experiment 13?
The experiment is set up in the same way as the original study, the experimenter give the instructions to the point about administering shocks. But he left and an ordinary man was doing the role of the experiment
Result// (4/20) went to the maximum shock level
(16/20) broke away from the ordinary man’s instructions
What is a moral strain?
The concept of participants become uncomfortable with their behaviour because they feel that it is wrong and goes against their values
What is the agentic state?
When individuals act as agents for others
Their own consciences are not in control
What is the autonomous state?
Individuals see themselves as having power
They see their actions as being voluntary
What is autonomy?
It is being under ones own control and having the power to make ones own decisions.
Strengths of Agency Theory
It explains the different levels of obedience found in the variations to the basic study. In the basic study, the participants did not take responsibility and said that they were doing what they were told. However, as they were made to take more responsibility because, for example to hold the victims hand down, the obedience level decreased. Evidence from Gupta (1983) supports this
The theory helps to explain the issue that triggered Milgram’s research into obedience- the Holocaust- where so many Jews and members of other minorities were slaughtered. Eichmann said that he was just obeying orders; agency theory helps to explain he would obey such a degree. This helps to explain atrocious actions throughout history, like the My Lai massacre, which was where US Soliders obeyed an order to kill women and children in a village when this we clearly not something soldiers should do.
Weaknesses of the Agency Theory
There are other possible explanations for obedience like social power. French and Raven (1959) proposed five different kinds of power:
- Legitimate power is held by those in certain roles: Milgram’s role would have had legitimate power
- Reward power is held by those with certain resources; Milgram may have held reward power because he paid the participants
- Coercive power is held by those who can punish another; Milgram gave the participants a small shock so they may have felt he could punish them
- Expert power is held by those with knowledge; the participants would see Milgram as an expert
- Referant power is held by those who can win people over; the participants would probably not have seen Milgram in this light
The obedience shown by the participants could be explained by social power theory. When another explanation is equally possible, this makes a theory less powerful as an explanation
-Agency theory is more a description of how society works than explanation. It suggests that the participants obeyed because they were agents of authority figures, so agency theory does not explain in more detail why obedience occurs. The theory says people are agents of others in society because that is the way society works and natural selection means that people have evolved to obey those in higher positions. There is no evidence for this, other than it is a claim that makes sense.
What is the social impact theory?
It is a theory which looks at the functioning of individuals in the presence of others.
Strengths of the social impact theory
Using a mathematical formula, predictions can be made to help society in the control of its members, which can mean controlling obedience that is to the detriment of a society. As long as the factors can be measured, the likely influence on individuals can be estimated, it has useful predictive power
There is reliability in a theory that is set out so clearly, and if the same measurements about groups and individuals are put into the formula, the same predictions will emerge
In theory, the formula should be generalisable to different cultures as social impact theory claims that the features they highlight are present in all groups.
As a theory of obedience:
Milgram’s results showed that when the participant had what they thought was peer support, the was less obedience. Social impact theory acknowledges that the impact is affected by the number of people being influenced as much as by the number doing the influencing, so can explain this results
Acknowledges strength as a feature of gaps, which includes their power of persuasion, as well as how many authority they have, which suits the idea that people obey those in authority
Weaknesses of social impact theory
It’s a static theory: it does not into account the reciprocal effects of the individual on their social environment, alongside the effects of others on the individual. The individual and the group interact- the group is not acting on a passive individual but one who is active in the interaction
The theory discusses social influence in general rather than specifically looking at obedience or issues around group behaviour, such as social loafing.
As a theory of obedience:
Social impact theory looks at social impact in general and not obedience in particular, for example it can help to explain why the presence of other affects obedience levels, but it cannot explain why the change of setting affect obedience
Obedience is a behaviour by someone in response to someone else in a specific situation and is not about the influence of groups on behaviour, so on the features of obedience that involve groups are addressed.
What is obedience?
It is the concept of obeying direct orders from someone in authority
Evaluation of variations of Milgram’s (1963)
- The strong controls avoid bias and make he experience the same for all participants, so cause-and-effect conclusions can be drawn
- Because of the clear procedures and controls, the studies are replicable and can be tested for reliability. The finding from the studies with variations are different from each other and from each other and from the basic study, but they show obedience in similar situations and back up Milgram’s conclusions
- The studies are not ethical because hey put pressure of the participants, they deceive the participants and they do not give the full right to withdraw
- The studies have low ecological validity because the situations are artificial
Two pieces of evidence that suggest obedience is due to situation
Milgram (1963) One by one the participants mainly obeyed (for example they went up to 300V) even though they were very distressed, so this seemed that this was because of the experimental procedure (situation) rather than individual differences
-Slater et al (2006) also found obedience in a study using a procedure near to Milgram’s, even though the victim was ‘virtual’
Evaluation of the effects of culture on Obedience
If a conclusion is to be drawn about the effects of culture, then studies in different cultures need to have the same procedure, including controls, otherwise is not possible to tell whether any differences in obedience are down to culture or other differences in studies
- The obedience studies in different cultures all had differences in procedure, so we can’t be sure that culture actually has an effect on obedience
- Looking at the findings of other studies which show high levels of obedience, despite the differences in procedure, it does seem likely that culture does not influence obedience
What does ‘personality’ mean?
Personality is about someone’s unique and stable responses to specific situations
What is the ‘Authoritarian personality’?
People with an authoritarian personality is someone who is said to admire rules, be distant from their fathers and be mire likely to be in a military role. Milgram (1963) and Elms (1966)
What is an internal locus of control?
It the concept that a human with this, believes they are n control of their own actions and believes that what happens is something they have caused
What is an external locus of control
It is the concept that a human with this believes that what happens to them comes from outside their control and so if they were in a stressful situations, they would feel helpless to do anything about it
Evaluation of the effects of personality on obedience
Milgram used many participants in his studies and found a great deal of obedience. It is unlikely that there are just personality factors at work with so many individuals obeying orders
Elms looked at the interviews after Milgram’s study to see if he could find evidence of personality at work. There was some evidence that a more authoritarian personality was more obedient
Those with an internal locus of control are perhaps more likely to resist obeying, though there is not strong evidence for this
Milgram’s study did not directly control for, or focus on, personality. More research is needed to link personality to obedience
Evaluation of the effects of gender on obedience
The one study that Milgram carried out with female participants is probably not enough to test gender as a factor in obedience
Other studies have used both males and females such as Burger (2009), and in so many studies gender difference were not found. This supports Milgram’s idea that gender is not a factor in obedience
Not all studies looked at gender when considering the emotional reaction of the participants, but when such reactions are considered, females seem to show and feel more anxiety and tension
The experiments have strong controls over variables, especially as findings were very similar between different experiments, are reliable and give firm results
Situations where someone may be resistant to authority figures
- When someone can see the ‘victim’ (Victim is in the same room)
- When someone has to be involved directly in the punishment (Holding hands down for a shock)
- When the one giving orders is remote (Gives orders over the phone)
Situations when knowing about obedience may be useful for society
Members of the armed forces who apparently obey orders and then subsequently have to stand trial to see if they were personally responsible for their actions- a defence can be that they were in an agentic state and gave responsibility to the one giving orders
-People in authority, such as prison guards, may be seen by others as having overstepped the mark with regard to brutality- their defence could be that they were fulfilling their role, a role that society thinks of as a ‘strong’ one.
