Social Influence - Obedience Flashcards
What is obedience?
Obedience is a type of social influence where someone acts in response to satisfy a direct order from authority. It is a more direct form of social influence where the individual has less choice to give way. They are faced with the choice to comply with the order, or whether to defy the order.
Aim
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
To investigate how far people would obey an authority figure.
Procedure
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
Stanley Milgram recruited 40 male participants through newspaper ads and postal flyers. The ad said he was looking for participants for a memory study. Participants were aged between 20 and 50 years, in jobs ranging from unskilled to professional. They were given $4.50 for just turning up.
Participants drew lots for their role. A confederate (‘Mr Wallace’) was always the learner while the true participant was the teacher. An experimenter (another confederate) wore a lab coat. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time. The learner was strapped into a chair in another room and wired with electrodes. The teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric ‘shock’ each time he made a mistake on a task (learning word pairs). The teachers were not told that the shocks were all fake and that Mr Wallace was an actor. Shocks started at 15 volts (labelled ‘slight shock’ on the machine) and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts (‘danger - severe shock’). At 300 volts (‘intense shock’) the learner pounded on the wall and gave no response to the next question. After the 315-volt shock, the learner pounded on the wall again but gave no further response.
When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, he gave a standard instruction: ‘Absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer’. If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of four standard ‘prods’:
- (Prod 1) ‘Please continue.’ or ‘Please 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.’
Findings and Conclusions
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
- No participant stopped below 300 volts.
- Five (12.5%) stopped at 300 volts.
- 65% continued to 450 volts.
Observations (qualitative data) indicated that participants showed signs of extreme tension; many were seen to ‘sweat, tremble, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands.’ Three had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures.’
Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the naive participants’ behaviour. They estimated no more than 3% of them would continue to 450 volts. Therefore the findings were unexpected.
Participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was normal. In a follow-up questionnaire, 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated. 74% felt they had learned something of personal importance.
What are the strengths of Milgram’s study?
- good external validity
- replications have supported his research findings
What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s study?
- lacked internal validity
- social identity theory is an alternative explanation
- ethical issues
Why is a limitation of Milgram’s study that it lacked internal validity?
Orne and Holland (1968) suggest participants guessed the electric shocks were fake (displaying demand characteristics). So Milgram was not testing what he intended to test (i.e. obedience).
However, Sheridan and Kings’ (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. So the obedience in Milgram’s study might be genuine, 70% of Milgram’s participants believed the shocks were genuine.
Why is social identity theory being an alternative explanation to Milgram’s a weakness?
Obedience is about group identification. Milgram’s participants identified with the experimenter (the science of the study). When obedience levels fell, the participants identified more with the victim. Haslam and Reicher (2012) suggest the first three ‘prods’ are appeals for help with science (‘experiment requires you continue’). Only the 4th prod demand obedience. Every time this was used, the participant quit. The participants did not give shocks due to obedience, but due to their identification with the experimenter as a scientist (as explained by social identity theory).
Why is a limitation of Milgram’s research ethical issues?
Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram’s deceptions. Participants believed the allocation of roles was randomly assigned, but it was fixed. The most significant deception was that participants believed the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because deception is a betrayal of trust that damages the reputation of psychologists and their research. Deception of participants may also make them less likely to volunteer for future research.
There were also problems with the lack of informed consent, the violation of their right to withdraw, and the violation of protecting participants from harm.
Why is a strength of Milgram’s research that it has good external validity?
Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between the experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships. Hofling et al. (1966) found that levels of obedience in nurses on a hospital ward to unjustified demands by demands were very high (21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed). Therefore the processes of obedience in Milgram’s study can be generalised.
Why is a strength of Milgram’s research that replications have supported his research findings?
In a French documentary, contestants in a reality TV game show were paid to give (fake) electric shocks - when ordered by the presenter - to other participants (actors). 80% gave the maximum 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants, e.g. many signs of anxiety. This supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and shows that his findings were not just a one-off.
What are the situational variables that explain obedience?
- proximity
- location
- uniform
Why is proximity an explanation for obedience?
In Milgram’s original study, the teacher and learner were in the adjoining rooms. The teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
In the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate dropped to 30%.
In the ‘remote-instruction’ proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience rate dropped again to 20.5%. The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones when they were ordered to.
Why is location an explanation for obedience?
The location of the obedience study was a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (Yale University).
Obedience fell to 47.5%. This indicates that the experimenter had less authority in this setting.
Why is uniform an explanation for obedience?
In the original baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform). In one variation, the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call right at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat.
The obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations. This suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol and a cue to behave in an obedient manner.
What are the strengths of Milgram’s variables?
- There is research support for the influence of situational variables.
- Milgram’s research has been replicated in other cultures.
- Milgram’s research has control of variables.
What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s variables?
- Milgram’s variations may lack internal validity.
- Milgram’s conclusions provide an ‘obedience alibi’.
Why is research support for the influence of situational variables a strength?
Bickman (1974) looked at the effect of uniform on obedience (confederate dressed in jacket/tie, milkman or security guard). The confederate asked passers-by to provide a coin for the parking meter, for example.
People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate.
This supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is a situational factor producing obedience.
Why is Milgram’s research being replicated in other cultures a strength?
Miranda et al. (1981) found over 90% obedience in Spanish students. Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males.
However, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications have taken place in Western societies (e.g. Spain), culturally not that different from the USA.
It is premature to conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people everywhere.
Why is Milgram’s research having control of variables a strength?
Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience. Other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 participants. This control gives us more certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the variable manipulated (e.g. location), showing cause and effect relationships.
Why is Milgram’s variations lacking internal validity a weakness?
Orne and Holland (1968) suggest participants in Milgram’s variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the extra experimental manipulation.
In the variation where the experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public’, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out.
So it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and ‘play acted’.
Why is Milgram’s conclusions providing an ‘obedience alibi’ a weakness?
Milgram’s findings are an ‘excuse’ for obedience - suggesting that it is the situation not the person who is responsible. Mandel (1998) claims this is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control. Milgram’s situational perspective is dangerous because it ignores the roles that discrimination, racism and prejudice played in the Holocaust.
What are the two social-psychological factors of obedience?
- agentic state
- legitimacy of authority
When does an agentic state occur?
An agentic state occurs when we act on behalf of another person. Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an ‘agent’, someone who acts for or in place of another. In an agentic state, a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions.
What is the opposite of an agentic state?
The opposite of an agentic state is an autonomous state. ‘Autonomy’ means to be independent or free. So a person in an autonomous state behaves according to their own principles and feels responsible for their own actions.
When does agentic shift occur?
Agentic shift occurs when a person defers to the authority figure. The shift from autonomy to being an ‘agent’ is called the agentic shift. Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. This person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
What are binding factors?
Bindings factors reduce the ‘moral strain’ of obeying immoral orders. Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they feel. Milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims.
Who do we obey?
We obey people at the top of a social hierarchy. Most societies are structured hierarchically. People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. Parents, teachers, police officers, nightclub bouncers, all have some kind of authority over us at times.
How do authorities have legitimacy?
Authorities have legitimacy through society’s agreement. The authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society. Most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly.
Why do we hand control of our behaviour over to authority figures?
We hand control of our behaviour over to authority figures due to trust and through upbringing. One consequence of legitimate authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. We give up some of our independence to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately. We learned to accept authority during childhood from parents and teachers.
