social influence - obedience Flashcards
what is obedience?
a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order
why did Milgram study obedience?
he wanted to know why so many people in Germany obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder over 6 million Jews in the Holocaust
what was Milgram’s baseline procedure to study obedience (1963)?
participants - 40 male volunteers who believed it was a memory study
participant was introduced to a confederate and they’d draw lots to assign roles. This was fixed - participant was always Teacher
Experimenter asked Teacher give an increasingly strong (fake) shock to the Learner, located in a different room, each time they got an answer wrong
what were Milgram’s findings from his baseline study (1963)?
all participants delivered shock up to 300V, 12.5% stopped there
65% continued to the highest shock of 450V - they were fully obedient
Milgram collected qualitative data of their behaviour - sweating, trembling, 3 had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’
what were the predictions for Milgram’s baseline study?
before the study, he asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’ behaviour - estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450V
how did Milgram deal with any ethical issues?
all participants were debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal
Participants were sent a follow-up questionnaire and 84% said they were glad to have participated
what were Milgram’s conclusions from his baseline study (1963)?
Milgram concluded that German people are no ‘different’ as American participants were willing to obey orders that caused harm to another person
suggested there were certain situational factors that encouraged obedience, which he studied in later variations
strength of Milgram’s baseline study - research support
French documentary replicated the study
participants believed they were on a game show. They were paid to give (fake) shocks to other participants (actors), 80% gave maximum shock of 460V and displayed similar behaviour to Milgram’s participants
Sheridan and King (1972) used real shocks on a puppy
54% and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock in response to orders from an experimenter
limitation of Milgram’s baseline study - low internal validity
Milgram reported 75% of participants believed the shocks were real
Orne and Holland (1968) argued participants were ‘play-acting’
Perry (2013) listened to tapes from the study and reported only half believed the shocks were real
limitation of Milgram’s baseline study - alternative interpretation
Haslam et al (2014) showed that participants only obeyed on the first three verbal prods but not the last. According to social identity theory, the participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research.
They refused to blindly obey - contradicts Milgram’s conclusions of blind obedience
limitation of Milgram’s baseline study - gender and culture bias
androcentric - study is male-centred as it only involved male participants
ethnocentric - the participants were all from the US, may have behaved differently to people from collectivist cultures
what situational variables did Milgram study?
proximity
location
uniform
how did Milgram study proximity?
baseline study - Teacher and Learner in different rooms
variation - Teacher and Learner in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%
touch proximity variation - Teacher had to force the Leaner’s hand to the ‘electroshock place’, obedience dropped to 30%
remote instruction variation - Experimenter left the room and gave instructions via the telephone, obedience dropped to 20.5%
how can the effect of proximity be explained?
decreased proximity allows the participant to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
when placed in the same room as the Learner, they cannot distance themselves, so obedience reduces
how did Milgram study location?
baseline study - prestigious Yale University
variation - run-down office block
obedience fell to 47.5%
how can the effect of location be explained?
the prestigious university gave the study legitimacy and authority, so participants were more obedient as they perceived the Experimenter to share this legitimacy
obedience was still relatively high though as participants still perceived the scientific nature of the procedure
how did Milgram study uniform?
baseline - Experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a kind of uniform, symbolising authority
variation - Experimenter called away at the start and replaced by ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes
obedience dropped to 20%
how can the effect of uniform be explained?
uniforms encourage obedience because they’re widely recognised symbols of authority
we accept that they’re entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate
strength of Milgram’s variations - research support
Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in which 3 confederates wore different outfits (jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit, a security guard’s uniform) who asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter.
people were twice as likely to obey the confederate in the security guard uniform than the one in a jacket and tie.
strength of Milgram’s variations - cross-cultural replications
Meeus and Raajmkaers (1986) studied Dutch participants, ordering them to say stressful things in an interview - 90% obeyed, which decreased dramatically when the person giving orders wasn’t present (decreased proximity)
counterpoint - countries in cross-cultural studies are often still similar to the US. Smith and Bond (1998) identified only 2 replications between 1968-85 in India and Jordan - very culturally different to the US
limitation of Milgram’s variations - low interval validity
Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of the baseline study, and stated it’s more likely in the variations - e.g when the Experimenter is replaced with ‘a member of the public’, which Milgram himself recognised was very contrived
what is the agent state?
a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting as an ‘agent’ for an authority figure
frees us from the demands of our conscience
what is an autonomous state?
the opposite of being in an agent state
the person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their actions
what is the agent shift?
change from to autonomous to agent state
Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when an individual perceives someone as an authority figure, who has greater power due to their position in a social hierarchy
