S1 Wk 7 - Obedience Flashcards
Milgram’s definition of obedience
Conformity as: “the abdication of individual judgement in the face of some external social pressure”
Obedience as the above, plus INSTRUCTIONS
Also, usually involves unequal power relations
what is an agentic state
Where an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure acting as their agent
when and where was milgrams study and 2 essential components
1963, Yale University
‘Mr Wallace’, the learner
“Very mild and harmless-looking”
The shock generator
Meticulously designed to appear convincing
Shock intensities and reactions
15v: slight
75v: moderate shock
135v: strong shock
315v: intense shock
375v: danger, severe shock
450v: XXX
Mr Wallace’s reaction
Increasingly wrong answers
300v: pounded on wall
315v: silent
Teachers given mild 45v shock as illustration
four prods from experimenter - script to follow when teacher refuses
- Please continue
- The experiment requires that you continue
- It is absolutely essential that you continue
- You have no other choice, you must go on
4 results of milgram
All teachers went up to 300v
65% went up to 450v
Seen to “sweat, stutter, tremble, groan, bite their lips and dig their nails into their flesh”
Three subjects has ‘seizures’, one leading to termination of trial
second variation 5 points and result
As before, except with verbal feedback at regular intervals (pre-recorded)
75v: little grunts, increasing with shock
150v: ‘experiment, get me out of here!’
270v: agonising scream
315v: violent scream
At this point, the majority of refusals occurred
62.5% of ppts still went to 450v
9 subsequent variations
3: teacher and learner in same room (40% compliance)
4: as 3, but teacher forces learner’s hand on to shock plate (30%)
7: teacher alone, experimenter on phone (20%)
8: female ppts: similar rates to variations 1&2
10: “rundown office” instead of lab (47%)
13: experimenter as ‘ordinary man’ (30%)
15: two experimenters, contradictory commands (0%)
17: ‘two peers rebel” – two other fake ppts read word
pairs; one leaving at 20v, other at 150v (10%)
18: P only reads word pairs, fake P shocks (92%)
Milgram’s explanations for findings - 3
Diffusion of responsibility: uni, science, lab coat etc
Perception of legitimate authority: when lost, zero compliance
Agentic state: ppt becomes agent of authority (“a person comes to view himself as the instrument…he is not responsible for his actions”)
2 other studies of obedience
Holfing et al (1966): fake doctor instructs nurses to give fake patient a fake drug at 2x maximum dosage
Sheridan & King (1972): 75% of ppts gave ‘fatal shock’ to puppy in discrimination task
- Shocks mild, or anaesthetic given
- Some ppts very upset
Burger (2009): partial replication - modifications 7
150v maximum level
Ps reminded of right to withdraw
Experimenter a trained clinical psychologist
Ps only given 15v shock (“slight tickle”)
Ps debriefed immediately
30% stopped at 150v or earlier
37% when paired with ‘rebel’ peer
2 Critiques of Burger’s study
Miller (2009): loss of ‘emotion data’ by ending study at 150v
Screening pointless with 150v cut-off
4th prod (‘you have no choice’) also pointless
given repeated right to withdraw
Elms (2009): “obedience lite”
Most of milgram’s refusers did so after 150v
Ethical constraints mean low ecological validity
Can’t claim that history isn’t a factor (given
screening)
Haslam et al (2015): engaged followership
Application of SIT to the MIlgram paradigm
Compliance depends on identification with
a) experimenter;
b) goals of scientific research
Analysed Ps’ responses to follow-up survey
Gibson (2013): interaction analysis
Studied recordings of two variations of experiment
Prods embedded in other persuasive speech and behaviour
Only 2 Ps continued after 4th prod
- E effectively runs out fo script once 4th prod challenged
- In some cases, E departs from script and repeats previous prods (out of order)
