Social influence Obedience

Question 1

Milgram’s study of obedience - Findings

Answer 1

65% of participants went on giving shocks up to and including 450 volts (maximum).

· All participants gave shocks up to at least 300 volts.

· Only 12.5% of participants stopped at 300 volts.

· Those who continued after 300 volts either refused to carry on somewhere between 315 and 375 volts or went all the way up to 450 volts. ·

In interviews following the study, Milgram found that:

o 74% of participants learned something of personal importance because of being in the study.

o 84% of the participants said they were glad to have participated.

o Only 1 person regretted taking part.

Question 2

Explanation of Obedience - legitimacy of authority

Answer 2

• when a person recognises their own and other’s positions in a social hierarchy ​
• leading to recognition of the authority figure’s right to issue a demand ​
• legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority, eg uniform, legitimacy of setting.
• description of relevant evidence, eg Milgram variations (location), Bickman (uniform). ​

AQA MS 2021

Question 3

Explanation of Obedience - Agentic State

Answer 3

when a person acts on behalf of an authority figure/ person of higher status.
· the actor feels no personal responsibility/does not feel guilty for their actions.
· the opposite of an autonomous state in which people act according to their own principles.
AQA MS A Level 2018

Question 4

Explanation of obedience- situational variables

Answer 4

• Proximity - Milgram - teacher and the learner were in the same room, obedience decreased; touch proximity condition; experimenter leaves the room, obedience decreased .

40% - teacher and learner in the same room (high proximity)​

30% - teacher forces hand on the shock plate (touch proximity)​

Remote authority condition (experimenter give orders over the phone) – obedience drops to 21%

(Compared to 65% obedience rate in the original procedure)

• Location - Milgram – run-down office block vs Yale;

Measured obedience using electric shock experiment: change of venue to run-down building obedience levels dropped by 17.5% (accept 65% at Yale vs 47.5% in run-down office) ​

• the status of the location changed the participant’s perception of the legitimacy of the authority of the investigator ​* higher authority at Yale than in the run-down office led to higher obedience levels/lower authority in run-down building led to lower levels of obedience. ​

Hofling hospital location ​

• Uniform - Bickman – more likely to obey a man dressed as a guard (ordinary clothes = 49% vs Guard’s uniform = 92% obeyed request).

In Milgram’s experiment the experimenter wore a grey lab coat ​

AQA MS AS 2017 & AS 2020

Question 5

Dispositional Explanation of obedience - Authoritarian personality

Answer 5

A dispositional explanation of obedience.
Refers to a collection of traits/dispositions developed from strict/rigid parenting;
Examples of traits - conformist /conventional/dogmatic; obedient/ servile towards people of perceived higher status; harsh/hostile towards people perceived as having lower status.
Measured by the F-scale.
AQA MS AS 2019

Question 6

Evaluation of Dispositional Explanation - Limitations

Answer 6

• situational factors, e.g. proximity (Milgram), may have greater influence on obedience levels ​
• explanation maybe flawed because it relies on self-report (F-scale)/questionnaire data ​
• difficult establishing cause/effect between authoritarianism/parenting style and obedience as it is based on retrospective data/level of education may determine authoritarianism and obedience ​
• explanation cannot easily account for obedience of entire social groups/societies. Credit other relevant limitations. ​
  AQA MS AS 2019

Question 7

Eval - what does research support do for situational variables?

Answer 7

Bickman demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience
- field exp. In NYC. Three confed in different outfits
- jacket and tie, milkman outfit and security guard
- confeds individually stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter
- people were twice as likely yo obey the security guard than the jacket and tie

Question 8

Eval - what does cross cultural replications do for situational variables? (+counter)

Answer 8

replicated in other cultures
- more realistic procedure used to study obedience in Dutch ppts
- ppts ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confed) desperate for a job
- 90% of ppts obeyed
- replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. When the person giving orders was not present obedience decreased dramatically
- suggests that Milgrams findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or Men but are valid across cultures and apply to women too
COUNTER
- replications are not ‘cross-cultural’
- identification of only two replications in India and Jordan (places different to US)
- all other replications in culturally similar areas
- therefore it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgrams findings apply to people in all or most cultures

Question 9

Eval - what does low internal validity do to situational variables? (+counter)

Answer 9

• ppts may have been aware the procedure was faked
• situation was so contrived and so unrealistic that ppts could have worked out the truth
• possible ppts saw through the deception and just ‘play-acted’
  COUNTER
• one ppt came in very confident, chatty etc.
• by the end he was very anxious (nibbling at fingers, sweating, playing with hands, nervous etc.)
• did not seem as if he was play acting