Obedience and Resistance to Authority Flashcards
What was the aim of Milgram’s original 1963 obedience experiment?
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
What was the sample for Milgram’s 1963 original obedience experiment?
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’
What was the procedure for Milgram’s 1963 original obedience experiment?
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.
What were the findings of Milgram’s 1963 obedience original experiment?
Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued until the full 450 volts.
What was the conclusions of Milgram’s 1963 experiment?
He concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders.
Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the generalizability of Milgram’s 1963 experiment
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
Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the reliability of Milgram’s 1963 experiment
Controlled procedures meant it was replicable, reproducible and reliable
Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the validity of Milgram’s 1963 experiment
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
Give me the strengths and weaknesses of the ethics of Milgram’s 1963 experiment
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
What was Experiment 7?
A Telephonic Instruction Variation of Milgram’s 1963 original obedience experiment
Describe Experiment 7
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.
What did Experiment 7 show in terms of obedience?
If given a greater distance, sone deceived experimenter, giving lower shocks →
Proximity is a key factor in obedience
What are the strengths of Experiment 7?
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
What are the weaknesses of Experiment 7?
Unnatural situation
Participant was in an unautonomous state, weakening validity
Participant may not have believed in the shocks, weakening validity
What is Experiment 10?
Run Down office Block variation of Milgram’s 1963 experiment
Describe Experiment 10
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.
What were the conclusions drawn from Experiment 10?
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.
What are the strengths of Experiment 10?
Increase in validity ( real life scenario)
Some procedures for both experiments meant cause-and-effect conclusion is easily found: lack of difference in obedience
What are the weaknesses of Experiment 10?
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
What is Experiment 13?
Ordinary Man gives Instructions variation of Milgram’s 1963 Obedience Experiment
Describe Experiment 13
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.
What are the strengths of Experiment 13?
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
What are the weaknesses of Experiment 13?
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).
What was the overall conclusion, when considering the variations of Milgram’s 1963 Experiment?
Overall, the obedience levels were highest in the original experiment, meaning that obedience is related to authority.
define authority figure/legitimate authority
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.
define obedience
Following the instructions/orders given by a person perceived to be a legitimate authority figure
define dissent
Refusal to comply with a request or order from an authority figure (also called defiance, or disobedience)
define sample/participants
The group of people, sometimes called ‘subjects’, whose behaviour is being measured in the study
define sampling methods
how the sample have been recruited for the study
define volunteer sample
a sample of people who have volunteered to participate, usually in response to recruitment via advertising.
define setting
the location of the study
define task
what the participants are required to do in the study, by the researchers.
define naive participants
A participant who does not know about the aims of the study and/or other elements of the situation/task.
define confederates/stooges
people who are ‘in on’ the experiment and are working with the researchers, unbeknownst to the participants.
What research methods are used in Milgram’s studies of obedience?
Laboratory study
Experiment
Field study/field experiment
define situational factor
an aspect of the social/physical environment that may have an impact on behaviour; can be due to setting or other individuals
define dispositional factor
a characteristic or feature of an individual that may have an impact on their thoughts, feelings and behaviour.
define perceived legitimacy
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
define social support
having other people with you when facing an authority figure
define internalising
obeying without agreement
What did Milgram’s work suggest about obedience?
The situation also affects obedience, rather than it solely being due to individual differences
What studies support the idea that situation affects obedience?
Milgram (1963); Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986); Slater et al. (2006)
Why is Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986) important to obedience?
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.
Why is Slater et al. (2006) important to obedience?
Slater et al. (2006) also found obedience in a study using a procedure like Milgram’s, although they used a more ‘virtual’ victim.
Why did Milgram vary situations?
To see if it was the ‘cause’ of obedience, which was less pressure from authority figures resulting in less obedience.
When does the situation lead to less obedience?
Less prestigious settings, or proximity between the victim and the teacher being higher
How do the studies that are important to obedience less reliable?
Lacks ecological validity, as they were experiments in an artificial setting
What studies are important to culture?
Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986); Shanab and Yahya (1977); Kilham and Mann (1974);Mantell and Panzerellaa (1976); Blass (2012) and Schurz (1985)
What is another idea that could relate in higher obedience ratings?
Personality differences, or culture
Why was it concluded that human nature is to obey?
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.
Why is Meeus and Raaijmaker (1986) important to culture?
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.
Why is Shanab and Yahya (1977) important to culture?
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).
Why is Kilham and Mann (1974) important to culture?
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.
Why is Schurz (1985) important to culture?
Schurz (1985) found a 80% baseline obedience in Austria. He asked participants to give ‘painful and skin bursting’ ultrasounds instead of electric shocks.
Why is Mantell and Panzerella (1976) important to culture?
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.
Why is Blass (2012) important to culture?
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’.
What makes easier comparisons on culture possible?
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
What is the general consensus of gender on obedience?
Generally no differences between genders seen although women do experience more stress (Milgram)
What studies are considered important to gender?
Kilham and Mann (1974), Burger (2009), Blass (1991) and Experiment 8
Why is Kilham and Mann (1974) important to gender?
Kilham and Mann (1974) did find some differences suggesting females to be less obedient than males.
Why is Blass (1991) important to gender?
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.
Why is Blass (2000) important to gender?
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
Which evidence supports the idea that gender does play a role in obedience?
Milgram (1974) found women experienced more tension than males.
Shanab and Yahya (1977) found females to be more anxious
Why is Experiment 8 not enough to qualify gender as a factor of obedience?
One study with females does not generate enough evidence to support gender as an influence of obedience
What studies support the idea of gender as not a factor of obedience?
Blass (2012) stated out of 12 reported gender studies, 10 show no gender differences.
Burger (2009) found no differences in gender
Why are studies involving gender sparse?
Not all studies look at gender, but when reactions are also considered, females are seen to show and feel more anxiety and tension
What are the strengths of gender studies?
They are experiments and so considered reliable and give firm results: they have strong control over variables and findings
What are the weaknesses of gender studies?
Situated in artificial settings, making them lack ecological validity: less applicable to the real world
What was Hofling’s (1966) study aim?
He wanted to see whether nurses would follow an order breaching hospital rules
What was the procedure of Hofling (1966)?
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.
What was the conclusion of Hofling’s 1966 study?
What was the conclusion of Hofling’s 1966 study?
What was the aim of Bickmann (1974)?
Does uniform influence authority, and through this, obedience?
What was the procedure of Bickmann (1974)?
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.
What was Bickmann’s (1974) conclusion?
Visible signs of authority influences obedience
What research methods are used when thinking of situational factors influencing obedience?
Cross-cultural research
Replication
Opportunity Sampling
What evidence is important to note when considering situational factors affecting obedience and dissent/resistance to obedience?
Experiments 7, 10, 13, Bickmann (1974) and Hofling (1966)
Define Experiment 7 in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent
Proximity of Authority Figure Telephonic instructions (Experiment 7) - showed that when the authority figure is further away people are less likely to be obedient.
Define Experiment 10 in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent
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.
Define Experiment 13 in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent
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
Define Hofling (1966) in terms of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent
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.
Define gender differences
whether there is a difference in measured behaviour or traits, between men and women.
Define cross-cultural psychology
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
define individualistic cultures
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
define collectivist cultures
emphasize the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and desires of each individual.
What studies are important when considering gender?
Kilham and Mann (1974), Burger (2009), Blass (1991) and Experiment 8
What’s the importance with Kilham and Mann (1974) in gender?
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.
What’s the importance of Burger (2009) in gender?
Burger (2009) replicated Milgram’s study. He found a small gender difference but it was not statistically significant
What’s the importance of Blass (1991) in gender?
Blass (1991) conducted a meta-analysis of 9 studies which showed that gender is not a factor in obedience.
What’s the importance of Experiment 8 in gender?
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.
What are importance studies to consider in culture?
Blass (2012), Shanab and Yahya (1977), Kilham and Mann (1974), Schurz (1985), Mantell and Panzerella (1976), Meeus and Rajimaker (1986)
Why is Blass (2012) important to considering culture?
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 %.
What research methods are used when considering gender and culture?
Meta-analysis
Cross-cultural research
Replication
Partial-replication
Why is Meeus and Rajimaker (1986) important to culture?
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.
Why is Shanab and Yahya (1977) important to culture?
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).
Why is Kilham and Mann (1974) important to culture?
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.
Why is Schurz (1985) important to culture?
Schurz (1985) found a 80% baseline obedience in Austria. He asked participants to give ‘painful and skin bursting’ ultrasounds instead of electric shocks
Why is Mantell and Panzerellaa (1976) important to culture?
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.
