Obedience (SOCIAL INFLUENCE 2/3)

Question 1

obedience

Answer 1

form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual, usually an authority figure
assumed that without an order, the person would not have acted in this way

Question 2

obedience vs conformity

Answer 2

obedience - order, someone of higher status, social power
conformity - request, people of equal status, need to be socially accepted

Question 3

positive influence

Answer 3

maintains line between authority
maintains order

Question 4

negative influence

Answer 4

following a rule / order even if you don’t think it is right

Question 5

Milgram (1961) aims

Answer 5

to investigate the level of obedience when told by an authority figure to give electric shocks to another participant
to investigate the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis
–> wanted to investigate whether Germans were uniquely predisposed to following orders
–> at the time, Nazi leaders were being tried for war crimes, Adolf Eichmann defended himself by claiming he was only following orders

Question 6

Milgram sample

Answer 6

Yale University in July 1961
used 40 male participants, aged between 20 and 50, jobs ranging from unskilled to professional, from New Haven area
used volunteer sampling - advert in newspaper
paid $4.50 for just turning up

Question 7

Milgram procedure

Answer 7

told study was looking into memory and effects of punishment on learning
introduced to a confederate, believed to be a participant
supposedly drew straws to determine their roles as either teacher or learner, although the confederate was always the learner
experimenter was dressed in grey lab coat, played by an actor
experimenter and teacher in the same room and learner in a different room, strapped to an electric chair connected to an electric shock generator controlled by the teacher
learner given a list of word pairs they were required to learn
teacher would test them by reading out one word and asking them to recall its pair from a list of 4 choices
teacher was told to administer electric shocks every time the learner made a mistake, increasing in voltage each time
there were 30 switches on the shock generator, starting from 15 (labelled slight shock) to 450 volts (danger - severe shock), increasing by 15 each time
learner gave fake reactions to the shocks (grunts and complaints, then yelling, screaming, asking to be let out, and eventually silence)
experimenter gave a verbal prod when teacher refused to administer a shock
if one was not obeyed, the next would be read out
‘please continue’
‘the experiment requires you to continue’
‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
‘you have no other choice but to continue’

Question 8

Milgram results

Answer 8

predicted that 1 in 1000 would administer the max 450v
100% of participants shocked the learner up to 300v
65% continued to 450v
some participants demonstrated signs and symptoms of anxiety (sweating, asking for reassurance, nervous laughter) and one had an epileptic fit

Question 9

Milgram conclusions

Answer 9

ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being
in seeking to explain these findings, we have a tendency to overemphasise the role of dispositional factors
situational factors influenced their decision to administer electric shocks
obeying those in authority is normal behaviour as a part of hierarchal society

Question 10

situational factors influencing obedience

Answer 10

formality of location
behaviour of experimenter
that participants volunteered and were being paid to participate

Question 11

research evidence for Milgram’s study

Answer 11

Hofling
sample of 22 nurses
recieved phone call from a confederate asking them to give a patient 20mg of a made up drug of Astrofen and that he would sign the administration form in 10 mins
the label said that the max dose was 10mg - if the nurse obeyed, she would be exceeding max daily dose and be breaking rules requiring written authorisation before giving a drug and that she is sure that he is a real doctor
most nurses in questionnaires said they would not obey such an order
21/22 nurses complied without hesitation

Burger (2009)
replicated Milgram’s study with 70 participants (men and women, ranging from 20-81)
suggests that average Americans react to the lab setting today in the same way as previously
obedience rates were only slightly lower in 2009 than 1961
changes in social attitude can affect behaviour but findings indicate that same situational factors are still relevant today

Kilham and Mann
used Australian female students and female learner
obedience rates dropped to 16%
decreases validity of Milgram - results not replicated

Question 12

evaluation of Milgram weaknesses

Answer 12

low population validity
40 male participants, limited sample size, androcentric, ethnocentric, volunteer sampling with ad in local newspaper
not easily generalised to women, children or other nationalities
gender biased, not generalised to other cultures - America is more individualistic, less obedient

low ecological / task validity
took place in a lab
lacks mundane realism - behaviour unnatural due to unnatural setting
does not reflect obedience in the real world as situation is unlikely to happen in the real world
however Hofling’s study was more natural and obedience remains high - validates Milgram

Question 13

evaluation of Milgram strengths

Answer 13

high reliability
used standardised procedure - same audio of learner, same generator
easy to replicate by others to check for validity

high applicability
shows that obedience is influence more by situational than dispositional factors as participants were reluctant and distressed
would not have done it, didn’t want to
can explain why Nazis obeyed orders to the extent of harm

high temporal validity
Burger’s results only slight lower, little change in results, no temporal shift, behaviour regarding obedience hasn’t changed
results still valid today

high internal validity
participants were distressed, believed shocks were real
results valid as not affected by demand characteristics
but Perry analysed original tapes and suggested that many expressed doubts to whether the shocks were real
believers were more likely to disobey
most obeyed Milgram so believed was real, valid

Question 14

Milgram evaluation of ethics protection from harm strengths

Answer 14

no long term damage to participants since shocks weren’t real
participants made aware during debrief

Question 15

Milgram evaluation of ethics protection from harm weaknesses

Answer 15

participants were distressed and anxious
one suffered an epileptic fit due to stress of situation
violates BPS guidelines - didn’t leave the study in same state as entered

Question 16

Milgram evaluation of ethics informed consent strengths

Answer 16

couldn’t give full consent
if had known true nature, behaviour would not have been natural and results would be invalid
important data on obedience gathered

made fully aware during debrief

Question 17

Milgram evaluation of ethics informed consent weaknesses

Answer 17

told experiment was about effect of punishment on learning
violates guidelines as informed consent can’t be gained as they didn’t know true aim

Question 18

Milgram evaluation of ethics deception strengths

Answer 18

was necessary to reduce demand characteristics to gather valid and useful results
interviewed participants after to find out effect of deception
84% were glad they took part to contribute to research
only 1.5% wished they had not been involved

Question 19

Milgram evaluation of ethics deception weaknesses

Answer 19

were decieved about true aim of experiment, that learners were confederates, that shocks weren’t real

Question 20

Milgram evaluation of ethics right to withdraw strengths

Answer 20

35% were allowed to withdraw

Question 21

Milgram evaluation of ethics right to withdraw weaknesses

Answer 21

was made difficult - not made clear, gave wrong impression
experimenter said that they had ‘no choice but to continue’

Question 22

Milgram evaluation of ethics debrief strengths

Answer 22

all participants told of true nature
assured their behaviour was common
followed up a year later and found no signs of psychological harm
most were glad they participated

Question 23

agentic state

Answer 23

a person acts an agent on behalf of an authority figure when carrying out a direct order
personal responsibility is shifted to another person, therefore feeling no guilt for their actions

Question 24

autonomous state

Answer 24

behave according to own principles and feel a sense of personal responsibility for their actions

Question 25

agentic shift

Answer 25

change from autonomous to agentic state
occurs when people percieve someone as an authority figure who has greater social power because of position in social hierarchy

Question 26

moral strain

Answer 26

authority figure gives an order that goes against our moral conscience
agentic state allows us to follow the order by shifting personal responsibility to the authority figure instead
Milgram’s participants - once they learnt that the experimenter was responsible for the outcome of the shocks, they were less reluctant

Question 27

binding factors

Answer 27

ensures individuals remain in agentic state by ignoring or minimising damaging effect of their behaviour and reduces moral strain
Milgram’s participants - shifted responsibility to the victim or denying damage to victims
dehumanisation of Jews in Holocaust - makes them appear as different and lesser and doing a good thing by getting rid of them

Question 28

legitimacy of authority

Answer 28

people are more likely to obey someone who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy
have symbols of authority e.g. uniform
willing to give up some independence to people of higher status to hand control to them to allow them to exercise authority properly - accept that authority is important in allowing society to function
recognise authority figures from clothing, uniform, sex and age
Milgram - experimenter wore a lab coat which gave him a high status
–> when he wore everyday clothes obedience dropped from 65% to 20%
–> shows that percieved authority increases obedience - we are more likely to listen to someone who we think has authority over us

Question 29

research evidence for agentic state and legitimate authority

Answer 29

Milgram (1961)
participants asked experimenter who was responsible for harm to the learner
once they learnt that the experimenter would take all responsibility, they were more likely to increase to fatal voltage

Rank and Jacobson (1977)
replicated Hofling’s research
used well known drug (Valium) so they would be more aware of the effects
16/18 disobeyed the order

Milgram variations
if an experimenter was dressed in normal clothes instead of a lab coat, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 20%

Blass and Schmidt (2001)
study was shown to 38 college students
students blamed experimenter rather than participants
argued that his responsibility was due to his legitimate authority (wearing a lab coat) and his expert authority (assuming he was a scientist and therefore could be trusted as authority)

Hofling
22 nurses recieved phone calls from a confederate doctor asking them to administer a dose over the maximum of a made up drug
21/22 nurses obeyed without hesitation despite statement of dose on the packaging and strict hospital rules required written authorisation

Handell
described Holocaust incident in Polish town with Nazi Police
after receiving orders to carry out a mass killing of Jews in the town square, the battalion leader felt distressed
he gave his men the option to be assigned to another duty
12/500 opted out - overwhelming majority chose to carry out killings

Question 30

agentic state strengths

Answer 30

supporting evidence
Milgram participants were more willing to continue administering electric shocks after learning that the experimenter would take responsibility
participants were in the agentic state as they didn’t feel responsible for their actions

supporting evidence
Hofling 21/22 nurses obeyed confederate doctor when told to administer lethal dose of drug
nurses in agentic state as willing to follow orders and didn’t take responsibility for actions

Question 31

legitimate authority strengths

Answer 31

supporting evidence
obedience decreased from 65% to 20% when experimenter didn’t wear a lab coat
participants percieved them to be an authority figure since they had a symbol of authority and so were more willing to follow orders

supporting evidence
Blass and Schmidt found that external students blamed the experimenter rather than the participants and argued that his responsibility was due to his legitimate and expert authority
people follow orders from people percieved to be higher in hierarchy and place responsibility on them

applicability to real-life examples
German soldiers participated in atrocities where millions of Jews were gathered and killed, starved, raped, stripped and experimented on because of ideology that they were inferior
can be explained by agentic shift as German soldiers shifted responsibility to authority figures and acting as agents
legitimate authority - military relies on social hierarchies, expected to obey every order, uniforms and badges to distinguish
both explanations applicable and inform us of what we need to do to ensure that such events never repeat themselves e.g. being in autonomous state, questioning authority, not relying on social hierarchy to decide whether something is moral or not

Question 32

limitations of agentic state and legitimate authority

Answer 32

opposing evidence
Rank and Jacobson found that 16/18 nurses disobeyed a confederate doctor giving them an order to administer a lethal drug
nurses were in autonomous state - felt responsible for their actions and disobeyed authority

ignores dispositional factors, reductionist
right wing authoritarian personalities - intolerance towards people deviating from authority, like order –> more likely to obey
internal locus of control –> independent, feel personal responsibility for their actions, more likely to be in autonomous state
explanations of obedience cannot account for individual differences and ignore dispositional factors

Question 33

explanations of obedience

Answer 33

agentic / autonomous state
legitimacy of authority

Question 34

situational variables

Answer 34

proximity
location
uniform

Question 35

proximity

Answer 35

how aware an individual is of the consequences of their actions
teacher and learner in the same room - obedience decreased to 40%
teacher had to force learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ - obedience decreased to 30%
experimenter gave instructions to teacher over the phone - decreased to 20.5% + pretended to give shocks or used weaker shock
correlation between proximity and obedience decreasing
but Hofling had small proximity (over phone) but obedience was high

Question 36

remote instruction

Answer 36

lead to lowest levels of obedience
teacher could not see the experimenter and so felt less pressure to obey
proximity of authority figures had effect

Question 37

participants could not see learner

Answer 37

do not witness consequences / harm
participants could divorce themselves from the consequences of their actions
feel no guilt and continue to obey
less moral strain, disconnect from actions
BUFFERS reduce impact of orders given or reduce depersonalisation of victim

Question 38

correlation between proximity and disobedience

Answer 38

as proximity decreased, disobedience decreased
limitation - Hofling had a small proximity (over the phone), but obedience was high

Question 39

location

Answer 39

variation in a run-down office building
48% of participants reached 450v
less professional location caused participants to doubt experimenter’s credibility and integrity - felt it was less serious and prestigious
saw them as having less authority, so felt less pressure to obey

Question 40

uniform

Answer 40

researcher wore normal clothes instead of lab coat
obedience decreased to 20% (lowest level)
wearing a uniform increases obedience - easily recognisable, convey power and authority - viewed as having higher status
linked to legitimate authority
e.g. Bushman and Bickman (1988) found that people were more likely to obey when a woman was dressed as a police officer (72%) compared to a business executive (48%) or a beggar (52% - likely an anomaly)

Question 41

situational factors strengths
location – supporting evidence

Answer 41

variation in a run-down building had lower obedience levels of 48%
suggests that the office building appeared less credible than the university lab setting, so the authority was less credible
participants obeyed less

Question 42

situational factors strengths
uniform – supporting evidence

Answer 42

Bushman and Bickman (1988) found that people were more likely to obey when a woman was dressed as a police officer (72%) compared to a business executive (48%) or a beggar (52% - likely an anomaly)
shows that uniform increases obedience since people percieve a higher social status, as it conveys authority and power

Question 43

situational factors strengths
proximity – supporting evidence

Answer 43

Milgram found that if experimenter had a larger proximity from the participant, and gave orders over a phone, the participant found it easier to disobey - not physically present
rate of obedience dropped to 21%

found that if teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience dropped to 40% as participants would feel more responsible for their actions - see results of actions

Question 44

situational factors weaknesses
conflicting research evidence

Answer 44

Hofling found that 21/22 nurses obeyed doctors who gave them orders over the phone to administer a potentially lethal dose of a made-up drug - suggests that proximity does not impact obedience as nurses were very obedient

BUT, Hofling’s study lacks mundane realism, not a real drug so nurses would not have been familiar with the dosages

Milgram found that obedience was much lower when orders were given over the phone

Question 45

situational factors weaknesses
lacks ecological and task validity

Answer 45

Milgram’s study involved administering electric shocks, not usual task in everyday life - level of obedience not representative of obedience in everyday life
levels of obedience cannot be properly measured and generalised to other environments - lacks ecological and task validity

Question 46

situational factors weaknesses
ignores dispositional factors / reductionist

Answer 46

Elms and Milgram replicated original study, gave participants an F scale questionnaire, measuring levels of authoritarian personality (extreme respect for authority, more likely to obey people of higher status)
found that participants who obeyed also scored highly
suggests that situational theory of obedience is reductionist - fails to account for dispositional factors e.g. authoritarian personality, external locus of control

Question 47

dispositional variables

Answer 47

behaviour is determined by internal factors
e.g. genetics, personality

Question 48

authoritarian personality

Answer 48

• high respect for authority, demonstrate absolute obedience to authority figures
• demonstrate hostility and harsh behaviour towards people percieved as having lower status
  e.g. Nazis had extreme respect for Hitler and obeyed his orders, looked down on and persecuted Jews, who they considered to be of lower status
  Adorno argued that this developed from strict parenting during childhood - harsh and disciplined upbringing would later manifest into respect and obedience for authority figures
  inspired Milgram’s ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis

Question 49

the f scale

Answer 49

questionnaire measuring authoritarian personality
30 questions assessing personality, scored on a Likert scale

Question 50

authoritarian personality, f scale research evidence

Answer 50

Adorno correlated participants’ scores on F scale against different traits and found that people with an authoritarian personality tended to be:
- hostile to those of an inferior status
- obedient to those of a higher status
- resistant to change - uphold traditional, prejudiced beliefs
concluded that high obedience was down to dispositional factors

Question 51

Elms and Milgram (1966) - F scale

Answer 51

wanted to see if Milgram’s more obedient participants were more likely to display authoritarian personality traits
participants completed personality questionnaires and the F scale + asked open ended questions about relationship with parents and with experimenter and learner
the obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter, and showed higher levels of the authoritarian personality
suggests a link between authoritarian personality and obedience - only correlational, difficult to draw meaningful conclusions, many other situational factors

Question 52

dispositional factors strengths
supporting evidence

Answer 52

Elms and Milgram found a link between authoritarian personalities and obedience (high levels of both)
correlation supports idea of dispositional factors affecting individual’s likelihood to obey
BUT, is only a correlational study
does not provide evidence of causation, may just contain related traits, don’t know how much they may contribute to each other

Question 53

dispositional factors strengths
high applicability

Answer 53

the Nazi regime demonstrated authoritarian personalities
- respected leaders deeply and followed orders without hesitation
- looked down on those deemed to be lower status e.g. persecution of Jews

dispositional variables provide insight into why people obey
- informs society of signs to watch for when possible regimes may seek to carry out atrocities and need to combat against such personalities

Question 54

dispositional factors weaknesses
low population validity

Answer 54

used a sample of 40 male American participants, aged 20-50, jobs ranging from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area
sample is androcentric, not generalisable to women or other nationalities - not representative of ethnic spread experienced in regular population

Question 55

dispositional factors weaknesses
low validity

Answer 55

measured through F scale - questionnaire lacks validity
participants’ answers are likely to be influenced by social desirability (adapting answers to appear more socially acceptable)
answers may not be accurate, so data not fully valid

Question 56

dispositional factors weaknesses
ignores situational factors / reductionist

Answer 56

Milgram’s variation with a run-down office building setting
obedience decreased from 65% to 48% as setting was viewed less credible, and therefore the experimenter’s authority was less credible - felt less pressured to obey orders
situational factors also influence behaviour

thinking purely about dispositional factors is reductionist, as situational factors also influence behaviour
Middenmorp and Meleon found that less educated people are more likely to display authoritarian personality characteristics - suggests that education may be the main cause of obedient behaviour, and that authoritarian personality may just be related

external variables also influence behaviour