Social Influence - Obedience

Question 1

What is obedience?

Answer 1

• a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order
• the person giving the order is usually a figure of authority (has the power to punish if they do not obey)

Question 2

Example of obedience (Nazi Germany) :

Answer 2

• Nazi Germany (6 million innocent people killed by Nazi’s during Hitler’s regime)
• defended themselves by saying that they were only following orders
• due to this, historians believed that Germans were much more obedient than others
• Milgram wanted to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis

Question 3

What was the aim of Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 3

• to investigate the level of obedience participants would show when given orders to administer electric shocks to another human being by a figure of authority

Question 4

What was the procedure of Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 4

• sample (volunteered) consisted of 40 male participants aged 20-50
• paid $4 per hour and were told that the study was on ‘memory and learning’
• took place at Yale University they and met experimenter and Mr Wallace (confederate)
• Mr Wallace would always be the ‘Learner’ and the participant would always be the ‘Teacher’ (fixed draw)
• the participant would be shown Mr Wallace (‘minor heart condition’) with electrodes attached to his arms and a room with an electric shock generator
• the switches ranged from 15 volts to 375 volts to 450 volts
• everytime the shocks increased (when Learner answered incorrectly), pre-recorded screams would be heard by the Teacher
• this continued til 315 volts, after that there was silence
• if the Teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of prods *(next flashcard)

Question 5

What were the four prods used?

Answer 5

• Prod 1: ‘Please continue/go on’
• Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’
• Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
• Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
• these were always made in sequence

Question 6

What were the results of Milgram”s (1963) study?

Answer 6

• all participants shocked up to 300 volts
• 65% shocked all the way up to 450 volts
• 14 of the participants defied the experimenter, while 26 obeyed
• many participants showed signs of nervousness and tension (sweating, trembling, nervous laughing fits)
• 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures
• a follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad to have participated

Question 7

What did Milgram conclude?

Answer 7

• normal people will obey authority even if their actions may be detrimental (did not support the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis)

Question 8

What were the consequences of this procedure?

Answer 8

• some subjects suffered extreme nervous tension (e.g. nervous laughter was observed)
• participants were physically sweating/continually asking for reassurance from the experimenter
• one participant had an epileptic fit

Question 9

What are the strengths of Milgram’s study?

Answer 9

• good external validity:
  
  • shows relationship between authority figure and participant (accurately reflected real life authority)
  • Hofling et al (1966) = 22 nurses (USA) received phone calls from a confederate (Dr. Smith) instructing them to give Mr Jones 20mg of a “drug” called Astrofen (max. dose was 10mg)
  • 21/22 nurses obeyed “Dr. Smith” without hesitation
  • 11 did not notice the max. dosage
• supporting replication:
  
  • Le Jeu De La Mort (The Game of Death) (2010)
  • contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks, when ordered by presenter
  • 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock (460 volts)
  • demonstrated same behaviour as Milgram’s participants (nervous laughter, signs of anxiety)

Question 10

What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s study?

Answer 10

• low internal validity:
  
  • some participants may have shown demand characteristics
  • Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants may have guessed the aim of the experiment/may not have believed the set-up
  • Perry (2013) found that many of Milgram’s participants expressed doubts on whether the shocks were real or not
  • Milgram reported that 70% believed the shocks were real
• ethical issues:
  
  • Baumrind (1964) criticised the ways Milgram deceived his participants
  • e.g. he made them believe the ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ roles were randomly allocated and that the shocks were real

Question 11

What were the criticisms and defences of Milgram’s study?

Answer 11

• participants not fully informed
  
  • deception was necessary for the experiment
  • participants were fully debriefed at the end of the study
• difficult to withdraw
  
  • it was difficult but not impossible
  • 35% did withdraw
• risk of long-term harm (believed that they injured/killed someone)
  
  • thorough debriefing was provided
  • told shocks were not real and met the ‘learner’
  • obedient participants were told their behaviour was normal and that many others did the same

Question 12

What did Milgram’s questionnaire after his study show?

Answer 12

• 84% were glad to have taken part
• 1.3% were sorry to have taken part
• 74% learnt something of personal importance
• a year later, participants were interviewed and were not psychologically harmed

Question 13

What are the 3 situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 13

• proximity
• location
• uniform

Question 14

How did Milgram investigate proximity?

Answer 14

• original study:
  
  • teacher and learner were in an adjoining room (could hear learner but not see him)
  • obedience rate = 65%
• proximity variation:
  
  • teacher and learner in the same room
  • obedience rate = 40%
• touch proximity:
  
  • teacher forced learner’s hand onto the ‘electroshock plate’
  • obedience rate = 30%
• remote instruction:
  
  • experimenter left the room and gave instructions through telephone
  • obedience rate = 20.5%

Question 15

How did Milgram investigate location?

Answer 15

• original study:
  
  • conducted at Yale University
  • obedience rate = 65%
• location variation:
  
  • took place in a run-down building
  • obedience rate = 47.5%

Question 16

How did Milgram investigate uniform?

Answer 16

• original study:
  
  • teacher wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority
  • obedience rate = 65%
• uniform variation:
  
  • role taken over by ‘ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes
  • obedience rate = 20%

Question 17

What are the strengths of Milgram’s variations?

Answer 17

• research support:
  
  • Bickman (1974) had 3 male researchers give orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in New York
  • dressed in a suit, milkman’s uniform, or a guard’s uniform
  • orders included: “pick up this bag for me”, “… give him a dime”
  • obedience rate = guard (80%), suit/milkman’s uniform (40%)
• cross cultural replications:
  
  • Miranda et al (1981) found high obedience rates in Spanish students (90%)
  • Milgram’s conclusions about obedience were not limited to American males
  • he also repeated the study on females and found similar results to males
  • ** Smith and Bond (1998) his studies were replicated in developed societies so these results may not apply to developing countries due to difference in norms/values **
• control of variables in Milgram’s variations:
  
  • variations for location and proximity were highly controlled (other variables kept constant)
  • replicated variations on 1000 participants
  • shows his research is valid (in measuring the IV) and also replicable, so stronger conclusions can be drawn

Question 18

What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s variations?

Answer 18

• lack of internal validity:
  
  • Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants showed demand characteristics
  • when the uniform variation dropped obedience levels to 20%, Milgram also believed that some may have worked out the truth/aim of the study (hence 35% did not shock to 450 volts)
  • unsure if real obedience was shown or just demand characteristics
• obedience alibi:
  
  • David Mandel (1998) argued that these situational variables could be used as an excuse/alibi to justify evil or bad behaviour
  • he believed these variables could be used as an excuse to the holocaust survivors
  • i.e. saying that the Nazis committed this atrocity due to (situational) factors beyond their control

Question 19

What are the 2 main explanations of obedience?

Answer 19

• the agentic state
• legitimacy of authority

Question 20

What is the agentic state theory?

Answer 20

• it is where an individual does not take responsibility for their own actions as they believe that they are acting for/in place for another
• they see themselves as under the authority of another, hence carry out orders without question

Question 21

What is the autonomic state?

Answer 21

• when someone acts as an independent individual
• they are aware of the consequences of their actions and makes decisions knowing that they are responsible for what they do

Question 22

What is the agentic shift?

Answer 22

• the change from an autonomous state to the agentic state

Question 23

Who introduced this theory?

Answer 23

• Milgram (1974)
• he suggested this occurs when an individual perceives someone else as a figure of authority
• this person has greater power due to their position in a social hierarchy

Question 24

Why does the individual remain in the agentic state?

Answer 24

• Milgram argued that binding factors encouraged you to stay in that state
• this included aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore the damaging effects and to shift the responsibility to the victim
• the individual then feels calm/in control and believe that the fault lies in the victim/authority figure

Question 25

How does this apply to Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 25

• he believed that participants viewed themselves as subordinates of the experimenter (did not feel responsible for their actions)
• during the debrief, many reported that they knew it was wrong to deliver the electric shocks but felt that they were expected to obey the experimenter

Question 26

What are the strengths of the agentic state explanation?

Answer 26

• research support:
  
  • Blass Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them who was responsible for harming Mr Wallace
  • they blamed the experimenter, and not the participant
  • they also indicated that the experimenter had a greater power over the participant (social hierarchy) so the ppt was simply following orders

Question 27

What are the weaknesses of the agentic state explanation?

Answer 27

• this theory did not explain why those who are ‘agents’ still do not obey
  
  • e.g. why some people did not obey the authority figure in Milgram’s study
  • also did not explain why one of the nurses (Hofling et al) did not obey the doctor
• research evidence refuted the idea that Nazi’s behaviour could be explain in terms of the agentic state
• Mandel (1998) explained how men from the German Reserve Police Battalion obeyed orders to shoot Polish civilians
  
  • they were not given direct orders (could have done other duties)
  • yet they still decided to shoot the civilians
  • hence, this theory does not explain obedience as the ‘agents’ were not given any orders but still chose to shoot

Question 28

What is legitimate authority?

Answer 28

• an individual who holds greater (social) power because of their place in the social hierarchy
• we are taught to obey those with legitimate authority as we trust them, or we fear punishment

Question 29

What are some consequences of legitimate authority?

Answer 29

• some people are granted the power to punish others (society accepts police/court to punish criminals)
• however, the legitimate authority can become destructive
  
  • e.g. Hitler used his power for destructive purposes, the Holocaust
  • also shown in Milgram’s study where experimenter used prods on the participants to administer dangerous electric shocks to the learner

Question 30

What are the strengths of legitimate authority?

Answer 30

• legitimate authority figures are needed to build a well-functioning, ordered society
  
  • e.g. the police can help prevent crime
• it can explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes
  
  • Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argued that the My Lai massacre (1968) can be understood in terms of power hierarchy (US Army)
  • 504 civilians were killed, only one soldier was found guilty (said that he was only doing his duty to follow orders)
  • shows how the legitimacy of authority theory can be applied in real life situations
• it also explains cultural differences in obedience
  
  • Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia (16% - obedience rate)
  • Mantell (1971) replicated the study in Germany (85% - obedience rate)
  • shows the cultural differences in perceived legitimacy of authority (different cultures/upbringings show different rates of obedience)

Question 31

What are the weaknesses of legitimate authority?

Answer 31

• not all legitimate figures of authority should be obeyed
  
  • we may only obey orders due to the individual’s status (even if we disagree with their order)
  • e.g. Milgram’s study showed that people will obey authority even if it leads to harming another person
• some legitimate authorities may abuse their power
  
  • e.g. Harold Shipman (well-known, respected doctor) killed over 200 of his patients without suspicion
• leads to the idea that children should be taught to obey authority figures, but to also sometimes question their orders (if destructive)
• children should be encouraged to question unethical demands

Question 32

What is the authoritarian personality?

Answer 32

• it is a dispositional explanation of obedience, where the individual’s personality characteristics determine their behaviour (not the situational factors)
• Adorno (1950) argued that authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey authority figures
• individuals may develop this due to the harsh discipline during their childhood (involving physical punishment)
  
  • this creates feelings of hostility which are directed towards those who are weaker
  • they demonstrate submissive behaviour towards their parents and all authority figures

Question 33

What are the collection of traits an authoritarian personality may have?

Answer 33

• servile towards people of a higher status
• hostile towards people of a lower status
• preoccupied with power
• inflexible in their beliefs/values
• conformist and conventional (rule following)
• likely to categorise people as ‘us’ or ‘them’
• dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity)

Question 34

How did Adorno (1950) measure authoritarian personalities?

Answer 34

• used the F (fascism) scale
• participants were asked to rate how far they agree/disagree with certain statements
• Adorno tested more than 2000, middle-class white Americans (their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups)
• he found that those who scored high on the F scale had authoritarian personalities

Question 35

What are the strengths of the authoritarian personality?

Answer 35

• research support:
  
  • Elms and Milgram (1966) carried out a follow-up study with 20 obedient and 20 disobedient students
  • they each completed a MMPI scale (personality traits) and an F scale
  • they were also asked questions about their relationship with their parents/their attitude towards the experimenter and learner
  • results: higher levels of authoritarian traits among obedient participants (scored high on F scale)
  • obedient participants were less close to their fathers (described them in negative terms) and perceived the experimenter as admirable
• Miller (1975):
  
  • individuals who scored high on F scale are more likely to obey an order to hold electric wiring (harming themselves)
• Altemeyer (1981):
  
  • asked ppts to shock themselves if they made a mistake
  • found that those who scored high on F scale were more likely to obey and shock themselves

Question 36

What are the weaknesses of the authoritarian personality?

Answer 36

• limited explanation:
  
  • does not explain why majority of Germany’s population are obedient but not all of them possess an authoritarian personality
  • alternative: Social Identity Theory where an individual (German) belongs to/develops favouritism towards the in-group (anti-Semitic Nazis) and a negative bias towards the out-group (Jews)
  • this is considered a more relevant explanation of obedience
• methodological problems:
  
  • it is based on flawed methodology
  • F-Scale questionnaire: worded in the same direction (fairly easy to high score), all questions are closed (no explanation), can introduce interviewer bias (Adorno already knew their score on questionnaire)