Obedience and Resistance to Authority

Question 1

What was the aim of Milgram’s original 1963 obedience experiment?

Answer 1

To see how far people will go in obeying an instruction, involving harm to others and to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to

Question 2

What was the sample for Milgram’s 1963 original obedience experiment?

Answer 2

40 male participants from a range of occupations and backgrounds, as volunteers who’d responded to an advert in a local paper which offered $4,50 to take part in an experiment of ‘punishment’s effect on learning’

Question 3

What was the procedure for Milgram’s 1963 original obedience experiment?

Answer 3

The 40 participants were all invited to a laboratory at Yale University and upon arrival they met with the experimenter and another participant, Mr Wallace, who were the confederates.

The experimenter explained that one person would be randomly assigned the role of teacher and the other, a learner. However, the real participant was always assigned the role of teacher. The experimenter explained that the teacher, the real participant, would read the learner a series of word pairs and then test their recall. The learner, who was positioned in an adjacent room, would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock every time the learner made a mistake and to increase the voltage after each mistake.

The teacher watched the learner being strapped to the electric chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them that the procedure was real. The learner wasn’t actually strapped to the chair and gave predetermined answers to the test. As the electric shocks increased the learner’s screams, which were recorded, became louder and more dramatic. At 180 volts the learner complained of a weak heart. At 300 volts he banged on the wall and demanded to leave and at 315 volts he became silent, to give the illusions that were unconscious, or even dead.

The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of prods, for example: ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’ Following the experiment the participants were debriefed.

Question 4

What were the findings of Milgram’s 1963 obedience original experiment?

Answer 4

Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued until the full 450 volts.

Question 5

What was the conclusions of Milgram’s 1963 experiment?

Answer 5

He concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders.

Question 6

Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the generalizability of Milgram’s 1963 experiment

Answer 6

Volunteer sample is limited to those who read the newspapers in which Milgram placed the ad, and so may not be representative of the target population

Question 7

Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the reliability of Milgram’s 1963 experiment

Answer 7

Controlled procedures meant it was replicable, reproducible and reliable

Question 8

Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the validity of Milgram’s 1963 experiment

Answer 8

Ecological Validity lacking - laboratory experiment
Unable to generalise to real-life scenarios and cannot conclude that people would follow instructions in a similar way

Population Validity - male sample
Ungeneralizable to the wider population i.e. females and children
Non bias as each situation was exactly the same meaning cause-and-effect could easily be drawn

Question 9

Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the ethics of Milgram’s 1963 experiment

Answer 9

Right to Withdraw - prompts to continue, after wishing to stop
Deception - stated that the study was on ‘punishment and learning’ when was actually measuring obedience

Protection from Harm - reported feeling extremely stressed and/or anxious for harming another person (guilt)
Milgram had a lack of respect for his participants but was essential to deceive due to the nature of the experiment
83.7% were happy to participate and contribute to scientific research

Question 10

What was Experiment 7?

Answer 10

A Telephonic Instruction Variation of Milgram’s 1963 original obedience experiment

Question 11

Describe Experiment 7

Answer 11

Milgram thought that as the participant responded to the newspaper advertisement, they had already formed a relationship with the experimenter and so they tried to vary distance between the two to see if it would vary obedience levels.

The experimenter gave instructions at the start but then left, only responding through the telephone.

The results found 9/40 obeyed to maximum voltage - they concluded it is easier to disobey if the distance is greater between the instructor and instructee.

Question 12

What did Experiment 7 show in terms of obedience?

Answer 12

If given a greater distance, sone deceived experimenter, giving lower shocks →
Proximity is a key factor in obedience

Question 13

What are the strengths of Experiment 7?

Answer 13

It had the same procedure as the original 1963 experiment, so the change in variables were considered to be the deciding factors

Varied presence in other experiment variables support the conclusion

Question 14

What are the weaknesses of Experiment 7?

Answer 14

Unnatural situation

Participant was in an unautonomous state, weakening validity

Participant may not have believed in the shocks, weakening validity

Question 15

What is Experiment 10?

Answer 15

Run Down office Block variation of Milgram’s 1963 experiment

Question 16

Describe Experiment 10

Answer 16

Milgram thought the location was drenched in subconscious power (Yale is known to be a prestigious institution) which then affected the results. In 1974, Milgram stated that for animals, the location doesn’t affect results, but for humans, the complete opposite is true. He used this example to show this effect in real life.

Although he used the exact same procedure, the change of location did give participants some doubts, however participants showed the same amount of tension in this experiment as they did in Yale. Levels of obedience dropped from 65% in the original to 47.5%, however this was not seen to be significant.

Question 17

What were the conclusions drawn from Experiment 10?

Answer 17

He concluded location did not significantly change obedience levels and therefore there was a lack of evidence in having a ‘legitimate’ setting and high obedience.

Question 18

What are the strengths of Experiment 10?

Answer 18

Increase in validity ( real life scenario)

Some procedures for both experiments meant cause-and-effect conclusion is easily found: lack of difference in obedience

Question 19

What are the weaknesses of Experiment 10?

Answer 19

Question on validity as there was no significant drop in obedience levels
By taking it into the ‘real world’, it should measure ‘real’ obedience, but the control measures meant that it was only partially ‘real’ obedience that was measured

A drop in levels, though insignificant, shows the Yale Experiment to lack validity

Question 20

What is Experiment 13?

Answer 20

Ordinary Man gives Instructions variation of Milgram’s 1963 Obedience Experiment

Question 21

Describe Experiment 13

Answer 21

Milgram wanted to find out if appearance can change obedience levels and so set up another experiment , under exactly the same procedure as the original.

The experimenter gives instructions about shocking the learner with incorrect answers (with nothing said about increasing the amperage with every incorrect answer).

The accomplice, known to the participant at the time of the time recorder, suggests upping the amperage with every incorrect answer

16/20 didn’t follow the ordinary man’s instructions whereas 4/20 went up to the maximum 450V.

Question 22

What are the strengths of Experiment 13?

Answer 22

Same procedure so there is a direct comparison

Reliable as used in different variations, with the similar levels of obedience

Saw the accomplice draw (rigged) lots, just like the participant and therefore, participant is more likely to believe that the accomplice is ‘one of them’, lacking authority

Question 23

What are the weaknesses of Experiment 13?

Answer 23

Still quite a bit of authority - apparatus and approval was from Yale University

Having another ‘participant’ may not be enough to remove the power differential

Artificial Environment (like every experiment, to a certain extent)

Changes to trust, if they are trusting the experimenter

Validity decreases when the ‘ordinary man’ gives the instructions,

Experimenter leaving increases awkwardness and undermines the credibility of the experiment (lacks validity).

Question 24

What was the overall conclusion, when considering the variations of Milgram’s 1963 Experiment?

Answer 24

Overall, the obedience levels were highest in the original experiment, meaning that obedience is related to authority.

Question 25

define authority figure/legitimate authority

Answer 25

a person who is perceived as being in charge, usually high in status, with the right to give instructions or orders in a given situation.

Question 26

define obedience

Answer 26

Following the instructions/orders given by a person perceived to be a legitimate authority figure

Question 27

define dissent

Answer 27

Refusal to comply with a request or order from an authority figure (also called defiance, or disobedience)

Question 28

define sample/participants

Answer 28

The group of people, sometimes called ‘subjects’, whose behaviour is being measured in the study

Question 29

define sampling methods

Answer 29

how the sample have been recruited for the study

Question 30

define volunteer sample

Answer 30

a sample of people who have volunteered to participate, usually in response to recruitment via advertising.

Question 31

define setting

Answer 31

the location of the study

Question 32

define task

Answer 32

what the participants are required to do in the study, by the researchers.

Question 33

define naive participants

Answer 33

A participant who does not know about the aims of the study and/or other elements of the situation/task.

Question 34

define confederates/stooges

Answer 34

people who are ‘in on’ the experiment and are working with the researchers, unbeknownst to the participants.

Question 35

What research methods are used in Milgram’s studies of obedience?

Answer 35

Laboratory study
Experiment
Field study/field experiment

Question 36

define situational factor

Answer 36

an aspect of the social/physical environment that may have an impact on behaviour; can be due to setting or other individuals

Question 37

define dispositional factor

Answer 37

a characteristic or feature of an individual that may have an impact on their thoughts, feelings and behaviour.

Question 38

define perceived legitimacy

Answer 38

the person that is seen to have the authority to give an order; this may be suggested/indicated by their title, appearance (i.e. smart uniform) or the nature of their surroundings

Question 39

define social support

Answer 39

having other people with you when facing an authority figure

Question 40

define internalising

Answer 40

obeying without agreement

Question 41

What did Milgram’s work suggest about obedience?

Answer 41

The situation also affects obedience, rather than it solely being due to individual differences

Question 42

What studies support the idea that situation affects obedience?

Answer 42

Milgram (1963); Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986); Slater et al. (2006)

Question 43

Why is Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986) important to obedience?

Answer 43

Meeus and Radijmaker (1986) found the control group did not continue to give verbal comments to the ‘job applicant’ because they had the choice whereas the experimental group (who did not have this choice) showed a 91.7% obedience and gave all 15 stress remarks to the ‘applicant’, suggesting this was done as a result of situation. They had agreed to take part, were paid, and thought they were taking part in an experiment about stress and test achievement. It was unlikely that the individual differences (e.g. the different personalities within the experimental and control groups) caused this change in obedience as they were not that different.

Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986) found when others showed dissent, theo obedience of the participant fell. This was also noticed when the experimenter was absent.

Question 44

Why is Slater et al. (2006) important to obedience?

Answer 44

Slater et al. (2006) also found obedience in a study using a procedure like Milgram’s, although they used a more ‘virtual’ victim.

Question 45

Why did Milgram vary situations?

Answer 45

To see if it was the ‘cause’ of obedience, which was less pressure from authority figures resulting in less obedience.

Question 46

When does the situation lead to less obedience?

Answer 46

Less prestigious settings, or proximity between the victim and the teacher being higher

Question 47

How do the studies that are important to obedience less reliable?

Answer 47

Lacks ecological validity, as they were experiments in an artificial setting

Question 48

What studies are important to culture?

Answer 48

Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986); Shanab and Yahya (1977); Kilham and Mann (1974);Mantell and Panzerellaa (1976); Blass (2012) and Schurz (1985)

Question 49

What is another idea that could relate in higher obedience ratings?

Answer 49

Personality differences, or culture

Question 50

Why was it concluded that human nature is to obey?

Answer 50

Milgram’s study found participants were more obedient than expected, allowing him to abandon his ‘German are different’ theory. His agency theory is about ‘nature’ although the study’s findings suggest it was more about the situation (‘nurture’) that causes obedience. Therefore concluding it to be within human nature to bey, and that situation affects the level of obedience displayed.

Question 51

Why is Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986) important to culture?

Answer 51

Meeus and Rajimaker (1986) used a less extreme punishment (although still upsetting) in their replication as it is not possible to fully replicate Milgram’s study due to ethical concerns.

Question 52

Why is Shanab and Yahya (1977) important to culture?

Answer 52

Shanab and Yahya (1977) had a female experimenter who asked 6-16 year olds in Jordan to give shocks to each other. 73% gave shocks to their same gender peers. The conclusion was that children are obedient (although there may be some cultural differences between Jordan and the USA).

Question 53

Why is Kilham and Mann (1974) important to culture?

Answer 53

Kilham and Mann (1974) asked first year psychology students (Australian) to order pain to be given, and to give pain. When ordering, 68% male and 40% female obedience when administering the pain and 40% male and 16% female obedience. However, at the time, they talked about a ‘decade of campus unrest’ and anti war demonstrations → they felt like local circumstances affected their obedience levels. This could be seen as iti is not only the situation of a study causing obedience but also the situation at the time for the people of the particular place in which the study took place.

Question 54

Why is Schurz (1985) important to culture?

Answer 54

Schurz (1985) found a 80% baseline obedience in Austria. He asked participants to give ‘painful and skin bursting’ ultrasounds instead of electric shocks.

Question 55

Why is Mantell and Panzerella (1976) important to culture?

Answer 55

Mantell and Panzerellaa (1976) found 85% obedience in Germany. They used a control group (unlike Milgram 1963) and found that if the participants could choose the shock level, none would obey until the end.

Question 56

Why is Blass (2012) important to culture?

Answer 56

Blass (2012) reviewed studies and found an average of 60.94% obedience in the US and 65.94% everywhere else, which is similar to Milgram’s base study results. He suggests there may be other factors (e.g. gender or age) causing differences in obedience but these results show people tend to obey authority → ‘one of the universals of social behaviour’.

Question 57

What makes easier comparisons on culture possible?

Answer 57

If a conclusion has to be drawn on the same effects of culture, than studies need to have the exact same procedures → easier comparisons as well as makes it easier to say differences due to cultures rather that the differences are due to procedure differences

Question 58

What is the general consensus of gender on obedience?

Answer 58

Generally no differences between genders seen although women do experience more stress (Milgram)

Question 59

What studies are considered important to gender?

Answer 59

Kilham and Mann (1974), Burger (2009), Blass (1991) and Experiment 8

Question 60

Why is Kilham and Mann (1974) important to gender?

Answer 60

Kilham and Mann (1974) did find some differences suggesting females to be less obedient than males.

Question 61

Why is Blass (1991) important to gender?

Answer 61

Blass (1991) carried out a meta-analysis which found only Kilham and Mann showed significant differences. The general consensus is that there are no gender differences in obedience.

Question 62

Why is Blass (2000) important to gender?

Answer 62

Blass (2000) used Gupta (1983)’s unpublished study using 7 conditions, 6 of which found females to be less obedient than males, proving gender to be a factor in obedience

Question 63

Which evidence supports the idea that gender does play a role in obedience?

Answer 63

Milgram (1974) found women experienced more tension than males.

Shanab and Yahya (1977) found females to be more anxious

Question 64

Why is Experiment 8 not enough to qualify gender as a factor of obedience?

Answer 64

One study with females does not generate enough evidence to support gender as an influence of obedience

Question 65

What studies support the idea of gender as not a factor of obedience?

Answer 65

Blass (2012) stated out of 12 reported gender studies, 10 show no gender differences.

Burger (2009) found no differences in gender

Question 66

Why are studies involving gender sparse?

Answer 66

Not all studies look at gender, but when reactions are also considered, females are seen to show and feel more anxiety and tension

Question 67

What are the strengths of gender studies?

Answer 67

They are experiments and so considered reliable and give firm results: they have strong control over variables and findings

Question 68

What are the weaknesses of gender studies?

Answer 68

Situated in artificial settings, making them lack ecological validity: less applicable to the real world

Question 69

What was Hofling’s (1966) study aim?

Answer 69

He wanted to see whether nurses would follow an order breaching hospital rules

Question 70

What was the procedure of Hofling (1966)?

Answer 70

The doctor phone and asked the nurse to give 20mg of medicine (astroxin) to a patient, with the excuse that he was in a rush and will sign the authorisation form later.

This was prohibited as doctors were meant to be there in person, when prescribing medicine and giving instruction, the dose given at twice the maximum dose (10mg) and the medicine itself was unauthorised, as there was a lack of signature on the authorisation form.

21/22 nurses obeyed, until they were stopped.

Question 71

What was the conclusion of Hofling’s 1966 study?

Answer 71

What was the conclusion of Hofling’s 1966 study?

Question 72

What was the aim of Bickmann (1974)?

Answer 72

Does uniform influence authority, and through this, obedience?

Question 73

What was the procedure of Bickmann (1974)?

Answer 73

Researchers dressed in different types of clothing and gave instructions to passers-by. They found more compliance with the guard uniform than with any other uniform.

Question 74

What was Bickmann’s (1974) conclusion?

Answer 74

Visible signs of authority influences obedience

Question 75

What research methods are used when thinking of situational factors influencing obedience?

Answer 75

Cross-cultural research
Replication

Opportunity Sampling

Question 76

What evidence is important to note when considering situational factors affecting obedience and dissent/resistance to obedience?

Answer 76

Experiments 7, 10, 13, Bickmann (1974) and Hofling (1966)

Question 77

Define Experiment 7 in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent

Answer 77

Proximity of Authority Figure
Telephonic instructions (Experiment 7) - showed that when the authority figure is further away people are less likely to be obedient.

Question 78

Define Experiment 10 in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent

Answer 78

Cues of Legitimate authority: Setting

Rundown Office Block when Milgram’s experiment was relocated to a sparsely furnished office in a shabby area, obedience was lower, showing that the setting and context affected the perceived legitimacy of the researchers, and reduced the level of obedience.

Question 79

Define Experiment 13 in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent

Answer 79

Cues of Legitimate Authority: Clothing/Appearance

Ordinary man gives orders - when the person giving orders was wearing ordinary clothes they were less likely to be obeyed than the experimenter wearing a lab coat, which suggests scientific/legitimate authority.

Bickman (1974) showed that people in real world situations are more likely to follow orders from someone wearing a guard/security uniform, than ordinary clothes or a milkman’s uniform

Question 80

Define Hofling (1966) in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent

Answer 80

Cues of Legitimate Authority:
Title/Status

Hofling (1966) showed that people (nurses) follow orders when they are given by someone who is perceived as an expert/medical authority, high in status, in this case a doctor.

Question 81

Define gender differences

Answer 81

whether there is a difference in measured behaviour or traits, between men and women.

Question 82

Define cross-cultural psychology

Answer 82

looks at how cultural factors influence human behavior, by studying and comparing the behaviour of people from different cultures. While many aspects of human thought and behavior are universal, cultural differences can lead to differences in how people think, feel, and act, including obedience

Question 83

define individualistic cultures

Answer 83

stress the needs of the individual over the needs of the group as a whole. People are seen as independent and autonomous. Social behavior tends to be dictated by the attitudes and preferences of individuals. Cultures in North America and Western Europe tend to be individualistic

Question 84

define collectivist cultures

Answer 84

emphasize the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and desires of each individual.

Question 85

What studies are important when considering gender?

Answer 85

Kilham and Mann (1974), Burger (2009), Blass (1991) and Experiment 8

Question 86

What’s the importance with Kilham and Mann (1974) in gender?

Answer 86

One Australian study by Kilham and Mann (1974) found that female participants were more likely to defy orders, but their procedure was different from Milgram’s.

Question 87

What’s the importance of Burger (2009) in gender?

Answer 87

Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s study. He found a small gender difference but it was not statistically significant

Question 88

What’s the importance of Blass (1991) in gender?

Answer 88

Blass (1991) conducted a meta-analysis of 9 studies which showed that gender is not a factor in obedience.

Question 89

What’s the importance of Experiment 8 in gender?

Answer 89

In Milgram’s Experiment 8, with a sample of 40 women, the obedience rate was 65%, the same as the male participants in the original study. This showed that there was no gender difference in obedience.

Question 90

What are importance studies to consider in culture?

Answer 90

Blass (2012), Shanab and Yahya (1977), Kilham and Mann (1974), Schurz (1985), Mantell and Panzerella (1976), Meeus and Rajimaker (1986)

Question 91

Why is Blass (2012) important to considering culture?

Answer 91

Blass (2012) compared the average obedience rates in studies conducted outside North America and found them significantly not different outside the US 66 % and in the US 61 %.

Question 92

What research methods are used when considering gender and culture?

Answer 92

Meta-analysis
Cross-cultural research

Replication
Partial-replication

Question 93

Why is Meeus and Rajimaker (1986) important to culture?

Answer 93

Meeus and Rajimaker (1986) used a less extreme punishment (although still upsetting) in their replication as it is not possible to fully replicate Milgram’s study due to ethical concerns.

Question 94

Why is Shanab and Yahya (1977) important to culture?

Answer 94

Shanab and Yahya (1977) had a female experimenter who asked 6-16 year olds in Jordan to give shocks to each other. 73% gave shocks to their same gender peers. The conclusion was that children are obedient (although there may be some cultural differences between Jordan and the USA).

Question 95

Why is Kilham and Mann (1974) important to culture?

Answer 95

Kilham and Mann (1974) asked first year psychology students (Australian) to order pain to be given, and to give pain. When ordering, 68% male and 40% female obedience when administering the pain and 40% male and 16% female obedience. However, at the time, they talked about a ‘decade of campus unrest’ and anti war demonstrations → they felt like local circumstances affected their obedience levels. This could be seen as iti is not only the situation of a study causing obedience but also the situation at the time for the people of the particular place in which the study took place.

Question 96

Why is Schurz (1985) important to culture?

Answer 96

Schurz (1985) found a 80% baseline obedience in Austria. He asked participants to give ‘painful and skin bursting’ ultrasounds instead of electric shocks

Question 97

Why is Mantell and Panzerellaa (1976) important to culture?

Answer 97

Mantell and Panzerellaa (1976) found 85% obedience in Germany. They used a control group (unlike Milgram 1963) and found that if the participants could choose the shock level, none would obey until the end.