(P1) social psychology Flashcards
define obedience
obedience means complying/obeying direct orders from a legitimate authority.
define destructive obedience
when the outcome of compliance endangers or harms others.
define conforming
conforming is doing something, which is against the individual’s own incliniations but not with the intention of matching the behaviour of the majority.
define compliance
means going along with what someone says, whilst not necessarily agreeing with it. compliance is often to peers rather than those in positions of authority.
define internalising (in relation to obedience)
obeying with agreement.
milgrams (1963) original study
AIM To find out naïve participants would obey orders from an authority that went against their values; specifically, to see if they would deliver electric shocks to a confederate sufficiently powerful to kill someone. Also, to create baseline data to be compared with later Variations.
DESIGN this is a structured observation
SAMPLE
- 40 participants, all men aged 20-50.
- recruited through volunteer sampling: Milgram posted newspaper ads and they were paid $4 for turning up to a “study of memory”.
PROCEDURE Milgram employed a confederate (or “stooge”) to help. “Mr Wallace”, a man in his 40s, pretended to be another participant. After a faked coin-toss, Mr Wallace became the “Learner” and the naïve participant became the “Teacher”. The Teacher watched Mr Wallace being strapped into an electric chair. The Teacher felt a 45V shock to “prove” that the electric chair was real. Participants were assured that, although the shocks were painful, they would “not cause lasting damage”.
- In the room next door was the shock generator, a machine with switches running from 15V to 450V and labels like “Slight Shock” or “Danger”.
- Mr Wallace learned a list of word-pairs. The Teacher’s job was to read words into the microphone followed by four options for the second word in the pair. Mr Wallace would indicate his answer by pressing a button. If the answer was wrong, the Experiment ordered the Teacher to press the switch delivering a 15V shock. The shock went up by 15V with each wrong answer.
- The Learner’s answers were pre-set and his cries of pain tape-recorded. The Learner got three-quarters of his answers wrong. At 300V the Learner banged on the wall and stopped answering. The Experimenter ordered the Learner to treat ‘no answer’ as a wrong answer, to deliver the shock and proceed with the next question.
- The Experimenter had a set of pre-scripted “prods” that were to be said if the Teacher questioned any of the orders. If all four prods had to be used, the observation would stop. It also stopped if the Learner got up and left or reached 450V.
Please continue.
The experiment requires you to continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice but to continue.
RESULTS The participants were obedient up until 300V; this is the point where the Learner kicked the wall and stopped answering questions. Between 300V and 375V, 14 participants dropped out of the study (by exhausting all 4 “prods” with their questions and arguments). The remaining 26 (65%) carried on to 450V shock at the end.
- Milgram also collected qualitative data. He observed the participants sweating, trembling, stuttering and groaning. 14 showed nervous laughter.
CONCLUSIONS Milgram concludes you don’t have to be a psychopath to obey immoral orders: ordinary people will do it in the right situation. He had a number of situational explanations for the surprisingly high level of obedience:
- Yale University is a prestigious setting and the participants would be overawed and convinced nothing unethical could go on here
- The study seemed to have a worthy cause (memory) and was being done to further science.
- Mr Wallace seemed willing; he had volunteered (or so it seemed) and it was chance that made him the Learner (or so the participants believed).
- The participants had also volunteered and committed themselves; they were being paid and this carried a sense of obligation.
- The participants had been assured that the shocks were painful but not dangerous.
- This was a new situation for the participants and they didn’t know what was appropriate or not.
(AO3) evaluation of milgrams original 1963 study
(S: objectivity) milgram carried out a very well-controlled procedure. he had set prompts and had prepared the victim’s responses carefully. he made every effort to make the experiment the same for each PP. this is a problem because it avoids bias through avoiding order effects. This ensured that the PP’s responses were accurate and were not influenced by other effects. This, consequently, improves the external validity of the experiment.
(S: replicability) milgram’s controlled procedures meant that the study was replicable and could be tested for reliability. the precise procedure could not be repeated due to ethical concerns; however, with a different ‘punishment’ it can be used to determine the consistency of obedience like milgram found.
- burger (2009) is an example of a researcher who replicated milgram’s study in a more ethical manner.
(W: ethical problems) one of the biggest problems with milgram’s 1963 study is its ethical concerns. milgram pressurised his PP’s by using the prompts and described them as ‘sweating, shaking and trembling’ which shows inevitable distress and harm that they endured as part of his experiment.
(W: ecological validity) another criticism of milgram’s study is the fact that it lacks ecological validity. the task he set for his PP’s is artificial, getting people to deliver electric shocks in everyday life is highly unlikely; therefore, his study lacks mundane realism. this is a problem because it cannot be generalised as it is not representative of real-life scenarios.
milgrams variation 7 telephonic instructions/absent authority
In the original study, the Experimenter (Mr Williams) sits at a desk right behind the Teacher.
AIM
In this Variation, the Experimenter gives the participants their instructions at the start, then leaves the Teacher alone in the room with the shock generator and a telephone. If the Teachers have questions or doubts, they must phone the Experimenter. The “prods” are delivered over the telephone.
RESULTS
There was a significant drop in obedience, down to 9 (22.5%), and some participants gave lower shocks than they were told to do (because they thought they were unobserved).
CONCLUSION
Milgram concludes that the physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience. This is because when the experimenter is not present face-to-face, it is easier for the PP not to obey.
milgram’s variation 10 rundown office block
The original study was carried out at Yale University, in rather grand surroundings.
AIM
In this Variation, Milgram moves the study to a run-down office in the busy town of Bridgeport. There is nothing to make the participants link things to the University: Mr Williams claims to work for a private research firm.
RESULTS
There was a drop in obedience to 19 (45.5%), but Milgram didn’t think this was big enough to be significant. Participants showed more doubts and asked more questions. One of them made notes as if they intended to make a complaint later and another one objected that the study was “heartless”. The PP’s seemed just as tense in this study as in the Yale study.
CONCLUSIONS
Milgram concludes that the setting is not as important for obedience as the status of the authority figure.
milgram’s variation 13 ordinary authority figure giving orders
The original study used Mr Williams as the Experimenter, who looked severe and wore a lab coat. In this Variation, Mr Williams explains the procedure to the participant but then is called away. Crucially, Mr Williams does not tell the Teachers to increase the shock by 15V with each incorrect answer.
AIM
There is a second confederate present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of “writing down the times” of each test. With the Experimenter gone, this confederate suggests “a new way of doing the study,” taking the voltage up by 15V each time there’s a mistake.
RESULTS
Only 20 participants did this Variation and only 4 (20%) obeyed by going to 450V.
Milgram concludes that the status of the authority figure is important, but other features of the situation (the instructions, the shock generator) still create obedience.
In Variation 13a, Milgram uses the 16 “rebel” participants from Variation #13.
In other words, as soon as the participants in Variation #13 rebelled, Milgram moved into the procedure for #13a with them. From the participants’ viewpoint, it seemed like the same study continuing, not a new one starting.
The confederate suggests swapping places: now the confederate gives the shocks and the disobedient participant writes down the times. The participant is now a bystander, watching someone else deliver the shocks. Milgram notes that the experimenter leaving did create an awkward atmosphere.
All 16 participants protested. Five of them tried to unplug the shock generators or restrain the confederate physically. However, 11 (68.75%) allowed the confederate to go to 450V.
CONCLUSIONS
Milgram concludes that people are more willing to be bystanders than to intervene to prevent the abuse of authorit
results comparison for each of milgram’s studies (variations)
original study (baseline)
- 65% obedience (PP’s going to 450V)
variation 7 (absent authority)
- 22.5% obedience
variation 10 (institutional context)
- 47.5% obedience
variation 13 (ordinary authority)
- 20% / 68.75%
what influenced milgram’s original study and research into obedience?
Milgram was interested in studying extreme obedience. He wanted to understand how people commit extreme atrocities such
as the Holocaust and how Nazi’s would blindly obey orders.
He therefore conducted an experiment to investigate whether
individuals would harm another person simply due to following orders
from an authority figure.
(supporting evidence for obedience) hofling et al. 1996
AIM Charles K. Hofling (1966) created a more realistic study of obedience than Milgram’s by carrying out field studies on nurses who were unaware that they were involved in an experiment.
DESIGN field experiment
SAMPLE 22 (real) night nurses.
METHOD
The procedure involved a field experiment involving 22 (real) night nurses. Dr. Smith (the researcher) phones the nurses at a psychiatric hospital (on night duty) and asks them to check the medicine cabinet to see if they have the drug astroten.
When the nurse checks she can see that the maximum dosage is supposed to be 10mg. When they spoke with the ‘Doctor’, they were told to administer 20mg of the drug to a patient called ‘Mr. Jones’. Dr. Smith was in a desperate hurry and he would sign the authorization form when he came to see Mr. Jones later on.
The phone call ended when the nurse either (i) obeyed the doctor’s order; (ii) resisted the order; (iii) went to get advice; (iv) became upset; (v) could not find the medication; (vi) or if the call lasted longer than 10 minutes.
The medication was not real, though the nurses thought it was. The drug itself was a harmless sugar pill (it was a placebo) invented just for the experiment.
If the nurse administers the drug, they will have broken three hospital rules:
- They are not allowed to accept instructions over the phone.
- The dose was double the maximum limit stated on the box.
- The medicine itself as unauthorized, i.e. not on the ward stock list.
The study also used a control group to compare the findings from the experimental group.
In another hospital 21 student nurses and 12 graduate nurses were asked to complete a questionnaire asking them what they would do if confronted by the experimental situation.
RESULTS In the experimental group 21 out of 22 (95%) nurses obeyed the doctor’s orders and were about to administer the medication to the patient when a hidden observer stopped them.
- Only one nurse questioned the identity of the researcher (“Doctor Smith”) and why he was on the ward.
- The nurses were not supposed to take instructions by phone, let alone exceed the allowed dose.
- 11 nurses who went to administer the drug admitted to being aware of the dosage for Astroten. The other 10 did not notice but judged that it was safe as a doctor had ordered them to do so.
- When other nurses were asked to discuss what they would do in a similar situation (i.e. a control group), 31 out of 33 said they would not comply with the order
CONCLUSION
Hofling et al demonstrated that people are very unwilling to question supposed ‘authority’, even when they might have good reason to.
When the nurses were interviewed later, they pointed out that many doctors were in the habit of giving orders by telephone and became seriously annoyed if they were not obeyed.
Although such obedience was against regulations, the unequal power relations between doctors and nurses meant life would be very difficult if nurses did not do what they were told.
Hofling’s study showed how the social pressure brought about by the imbalance of power could lead to a nurse actually putting a patient at risk, rather than disobeying orders.
(supporting evidence for obedience) bickman 1974
AIM The aim of the study is to see how the uniform of an individual affects the levels of obedience of the participants.
PROCEDURE The procedure was carried out in the form of a field experiment. The experiment took place in Brooklyn, New York with 153 random pedestrians as the participants. The three experimenters each took turns dressing as a guard, milkman and then a civilian so this way the reactions would be to the uniform and not the individual. One of the experimenters were to give one of the following orders to the pedestrians:
Picking up litter
Giving a man a dime to pay for his parking meter
To stand at the other side of the bus stop.
RESULTS People were 2-3 times as likely to follow orders given by the guard compared to the civilian. For example, with the ‘coin and parking meter’ condition, the number of participants who obeyed the guard was 89%, whereas the number of participants who obeyed the civilian was as low as 33%.
CONCLUSIONS Bickman concluded that the results demonstrated the power of certain types of uniform. Dress alone can suggest authority - and when people think someone has the authority to punish them, they are more likely to obey.
internal validity
The extent to which research
measures what it has set out to measure.
external validity
The extent that research findings can be generalised to the larger population
factors that reduce internal validity
- Poor control
- participant variables
- researcher effects
factors that reduce external validity
- artificial task or conditions and a biased sample
what does ‘BPS’ stand for?
british psychological society
what are the BPS guidelines for?
The British Psychological Society sets and upholds high standards of professionalism, and promotes ethical behaviour, attitudes and judgements on the part of members of the Society.
what are the four primary ethical principles set out by the BPS code of ethics and conduct?
respect
for the invididual
competence
the researcher must be trained and educated in their field to conduct the experiment
responsibility
researcher must take accountability for any harm or risks that may occur (these should be avoided)
integrity
preserving the integrity of the individual
BPS code of ethics and conduct
what does respect include?
respect of individual differences, which refers to: age, gender, ethnicity, cultural identity, sexuality etc.
respect also includes privacy and confidentiality, which refers to ensuring that the individual’s data remains undisclosed to anyone but them.
another part of respect is informed consent, this is when consent is obtained and informed so that the person knows what they are consenting to.
finally, respect involves the PP having the right to withdraw, meaning that they can stop at any time they ask.
BPS code of ethics and conduct
what does competence include?
the researcher (and practitioner) must have up-to-date training and knowledge in regard to what they are attempting.
BPS code of ethics and conduct
what does responsibility include?
this principle is about taking care of the PP’s and preventing them from harm or distress.
this can be completed by debriefing the PP’s after the study. debriefing refers to telling the PP’s what the research was about and how their data will be used.
BPS code of ethics and conduct
what does integrity include?
the researcher must maintain professional boundaries and act on misconduct if witnessed.
deception is a key part of this. this refers to deceiving or lying to the PP during the study, which may be distressing; therefore, it must be avoided.
what are the five BPS guidelines?
- informed consent
- deception
- right to withdraw
- debriefing
- competence
burger, 2009 study
AIM To find out if the same results as Milgram’s 1963 study re-occur when the study is replicated with modern participants in 2009. Also, to see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience. Finally, to see if the presence of a disobedient “model” makes a difference to obedience levels.
IV The main IV is the base condition (same as Milgram, 1963) compared with the “model refusal” (rebellious partner) condition.
This is an Independent Groups design. It compares the 2009 participants with the 1960s participants and it also compares the control group with the disobedient model group.
DV Obedience is measured by how many volts the last shock to be delivered was - before the participant refused to go on, exhausted all the “prods” or reached 150V (whichever happened first)
SAMPLE 70 participants (a mixture of men and women) did the experiment, being randomly put into the two conditions. They were a volunteer sample, recruited through newspaper and online ads and fliers left in libraries. They were paid $50 before the study started. They were aged 20-81.
Burger actually recruited a lot more participants but screened many of them out. He dropped volunteers who had heard of Milgram’s original experiment, who had attended more than 2 Psychology classes, who had anxiety issues or drug dependency. It was a two-step screening process: those with psychological knowledge were screened at the start before even attending; those with drug or emotional issues were screened through a questionnaire when they arrived (but they still got paid, even though they didn’t do the study!).
PROCEDURE The procedure replicates Milgram’s variation #5 on his baseline study. The experimenter is a white man in his 30s; the confederate (learner) is in his 50s.
The script resembles Milgram’s but the test shock that the participant receives is only 15V rather than Milgram’s painful 45V. The participant/teacher watches the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room.
The teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter directs the teacher to deliver a shock, starting at 15V and going up in 15V intervals.
The learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful. At 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain. At 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains.
If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.
In the “model refusal” condition, a second confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks, with the naïve participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher turns to the naïve participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the naïve participant to take over delivering the shocks.
Burger used questionnaires to measure individual differences that might be factors in obedience:
- Interpersonal Reactivity Index is a 28-question test that measures empathy - how sensitive you are to other people’s feelings
- Desirability of Control Scale is a 20-question test that measures locus of control - how important is it for you to be in control of events in your life.
Burger also used ethical controls that improved on Milgram’s original:
- There was a two-step screening process to filter out anyone who might be unduly stressed by the experience
- The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50
- The experimenter was actually a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress
- The “test shock” experienced by the participants was only a mild 15V, not Milgram’s painful 45V
- Burger did not allow time to pass before he introduced the (healthy) learner and debriefed the participants
RESULTS Burger found that 70% of participants in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5. This sounds like a big difference but it is not statistically significant given the number of people involved.
Picture
Burger also compared men and women but didn’t find a difference in obedience. Women were slightly less likely to obey in the “model refusal” condition but this was not statistically significant.
Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience. However, in the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher locus of control (but this was not the case in the “model refusal” condition).
CONCLUSIONS Burger concludes that Milgram’s results still stand half a century later. - People are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values.
- Burger makes the assumption that any participant who was willing to go beyond 150V would have been willing to go all the way to 450V the way Milgram’s participants did. He argues that their “self perception” would have made them do this. - People like to see themselves as consistent; once they had made a decision to ignore the heart condition, they would not go back on that.
what are the four situational factors of obedience?
situational factors are variables in the environment that impact levels of obedience
1. proximity
proximity refers to how close/distant the authority figure is to the individual. when an authority figure is in close proximity to the individual, they are more likely to obey.
- (evidence) In Variation #7, Milgram investigates whether obedience is affected if the authority figure is far away. When the Experimenter leaves the room, telephoning in his instructions, obedience goes down from 65% (baseline) to 22.5%.
2. status / legitimacy
the status or legitimacy of an authority figure greatly influences the role of obedience. reducing the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure, through altering his or her mode of dress for example, can reduce obedience. similarly, reducing the prestige or status of the venue can reduce obedience.
- (evidence) milgram’s variation 13: ordinary man giving orders
- bickman (1974) showed that people in real-world situations are more likely to follow orders from someone wearing a guard/security uniform rather than ordinary clothes or a milkman’s uniform.
3. behaviour of others
the behaviour of those around us influences us to obey/disobey.
4. momentum of compliance
how far soneone goes in obeying an authority figure who gices orders.
- (evidence) milgram’s 1963 experiment
what are the four dispositional factors of obedience?
dispositional factors are variables within yourself that impact whether you obey.
1. personality: authoritarianism / locus of control
personality refers to a set of traits relating to an individual’s character that remains stable over time.
- according to adorno’s theory of personality, individuals who score highly on the F-scale are considered as having an authoritarian personality. these individuals are more likely to obey orders given by an authority figure.
- locus of control the degree to which people believe that they are in control of their actions.
internal locus of control someone with an internal locus of control would believe that they are in control and take responsibility for their own actions (e.g. i did not perform well in my test because i did not study properly)
external locus of control someone with an external locus of control would blame external forces for their own circumstances (e.g. i failed the test because it was rigged)
2. culture
culture may impact levels of obedience.
3. gender
your gender may impact levels of obedience.
what is (RWA) right-wing authoritarianism
right wing authoritarianism is a strand of authoritarianism that links to a political focus. this has been consistently found to correlate with prejudice attitudes. an individual with this personality has rigid thinking and prefers society to have strict rules which they stick to and expect others to stick to. failure to adhere to these rules should be punished according to them.
(examples of RWA leaders include: stalin, hitler, kim-jong-un, donald trump)
explain adorno’s theory of personality (dispositional factors of obedience)
adorno et al. (1950) developed a questionnaire called the california f-scale to measure levels of authoritative personality. he used a sample of 2000, middle-class, white Americans. in milgram’s original research, psychologists questioned whether the obedience occured due to situational factors (e.g. uniform and location) or dispositional factors (e.g. personality).
personality refers to a set of traits relating to an individual’s character that remains stable over time.
- according to adorno’s theory of personality, individuals who grew up with strict parents who’s rules they had to obey have an authoritarian personality. as a result, these individuals are more likely to obey orders given by an authority figure but are dismissive to individuals below them.
characteristics of authoritarian personality
1. obedient to authority figures
2. hostile to those below them
3. view things rigidly
4. hold rigid +/ conventional views
5. usually intolerant to people that are weak +/ different
internal locus of control
high internals perceive that they have control over the things that happen to them and their behaviour.
they are thus more likely to take personal responsiblity for their actions.
in relation to obedience
these individuals are less likely to obey and are more likely to become leaders as they are unlikely to rely on others opinions because they actively seek out information.
external locus of control
high externals view that they are influenced by external influences that they may not be able to control (e.g. luck).
perceived legitimacy (in relation to obedience)
the person is seen as having the authority to give the order, this may be indicated or suggested bt their title, appearance such as smart dress/uniform etc.
how can obedience be affected by gender?
gender expectations of gender differences in obedience may be due to gender stereotypes about women being more empathetic and caring, or less assertive. most studies have not found a significant difference in levels of obedience between men and women.
