Obedience Flashcards
Milgram (1961)
- participant had to administer (fake) electric shocks to someone giving wrong answers in a test in the next room (an actor not really being shocked)
Found- every participant shocked over 300
-every participant displayed signs of distress not wanting to continue but experimenter told them to continue - 68% went to the lethal 450V
Bickman (1974) - uniforms affecting obedience
People on the streets of New York asked to pick up some litter by either a milkman, a security guard, or a civilian. Obedience:
Milkman- 14%
Civilian- 19%
Security guard- 38%
Real life application- Hofling et al (1966)
- nurses were called at the hospital and a ‘doctor’ told them to administer a large injection of an unknown drug to a patient as they were running late
Found- 21 out of 22 nurses went to deliver the drug to the patient before being stopped
Two general explanations for obedience
The agentic shift- when people are given orders they’re more likely to carry them out if they can blame it on the person delivering the order.
Legitimacy of authority- the extent to which the person giving orders seem legit
Milgram agentic shift variation
Orders were given down the phone by the researcher
Found- obedience dropped from 68% to just 20% as the participants didn’t feel like they could blame it on him as much as he wasn’t in the same room
Milgram legitimacy of authority variation and also location variation
Did the study as market research in Bridgeport office buildings rather than at Yale university.
found- obedience dropped from 68% to 47% because participants didn’t think they were as legit and because they were in a less prestigious location
Situational variables affecting obedience
- Proximity- how close you are to the potential victim
- location (Bridgeport)
- uniform (Bickman)
Milgram proximity variation
The participant had to hold down the arm of the actor for him to be shocked
- obedience dropped from 68% to 30% which is still very high
