Social Influence - Obedience Flashcards
1
Q
What is obedience?
A
- 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)
2
Q
Example of obedience (Nazi Germany) :
A
- 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
3
Q
What was the aim of Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
- 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
4
Q
What was the procedure of Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
- 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)
5
Q
What were the four prods used?
A
- 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
6
Q
What were the results of Milgram”s (1963) study?
A
- 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
7
Q
What did Milgram conclude?
A
- normal people will obey authority even if their actions may be detrimental (did not support the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis)
8
Q
What were the consequences of this procedure?
A
- 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
9
Q
What are the strengths of Milgram’s study?
A
- 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)
10
Q
What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s study?
A
- 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
11
Q
What were the criticisms and defences of Milgram’s study?
A
- 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
12
Q
What did Milgram’s questionnaire after his study show?
A
- 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
13
Q
What are the 3 situational variables affecting obedience?
A
- proximity
- location
- uniform
14
Q
How did Milgram investigate proximity?
A
- 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%
15
Q
How did Milgram investigate location?
A
- original study:
- conducted at Yale University
- obedience rate = 65%
- location variation:
- took place in a run-down building
- obedience rate = 47.5%
16
Q
How did Milgram investigate uniform?
A
- 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%
17
Q
What are the strengths of Milgram’s variations?
A
- 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
18
Q
What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s variations?
A
- 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
19
Q
What are the 2 main explanations of obedience?
A
- the agentic state
- legitimacy of authority
20
Q
What is the agentic state theory?
A
- 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
21
Q
What is the autonomic state?
A
- 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
22
Q
What is the agentic shift?
A
- the change from an autonomous state to the agentic state
23
Q
Who introduced this theory?
A
- 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
24
Q
Why does the individual remain in the agentic state?
A
- 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
25
Q
How does this apply to Milgram’s (1963) study?
A
- 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
26
Q
What are the strengths of the agentic state explanation?
A
- 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
27
Q
What are the weaknesses of the agentic state explanation?
A
- 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
28
Q
What is legitimate authority?
A
- 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
29
Q
What are some consequences of legitimate authority?
A
- 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
30
Q
What are the strengths of legitimate authority?
A
- 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)
31
Q
What are the weaknesses of legitimate authority?
A
- 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
32
Q
What is the authoritarian personality?
A
- 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
33
Q
What are the collection of traits an authoritarian personality may have?
A
- 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)
34
Q
How did Adorno (1950) measure authoritarian personalities?
A
- 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
35
Q
What are the strengths of the authoritarian personality?
A
- 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
36
Q
What are the weaknesses of the authoritarian personality?
A
- 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)
