Social Influences : Obedience Flashcards
What was the aim of Milgram’s study ?
How far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
What were the procedures of Milgram’s study ?
40 male participants (20-50 YO)
They were introduced to another ‘participant’ (confederate) at the start of the procedure
They drew straws to determine their roles (rigged so the confederate was always the learner)
Learner was ‘Mr Wallace’
He had to read a list of word pairs, and the teacher would test him on the words
The teacher is told to give the learner an electric shock after each mistake
When the teacher refused to give the learner the shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders to make sure they continued
What were the findings of Milgram’s research ?
All 40 of the participants in the original study obeyed up to 300 volts
Overall, 65% of the participants gave shocks up to 450V
35% stopped sometime before 450 volts.
Many participants showed signs of nervousness + tension + stuttering
Three of the participants experienced seizures.
What were the conclusions of Milgram’s study ?
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure
Explanations of obedience point 1 : evidence supports agentic state
transcripts from Milgram’s study show that many of the participants were resistant to go on with the procedure, but were more willing to do so when they were assured by the experimenter that they were not responsible for the outcomes and that the experimenter would take full responsibility if anything happened to ‘Mr. Wallace, suggesting that they were operating in agentic mode and that this enabled them to continue with the procedure.
Calley sent his troops into My Lai during the Vietnam war to massacre the inhabitants of the village, and blamed his actions on the authority figure by saying ‘I was just following orders’.
showing that the theory can help to explain real-world obedience behaviour.
Explanations of obedience point 2 : evidence against agentic state
There can be other possibilities for cruel behaviour that people show beyond just the agentic state which Milgram said was possible.
social scientists believed that Milgram found some signs of cruelty among his participants who then used the experimental situation as a way to express their cruelty.
This is supported by Zimbardo’s study as within a few days of playing the roles of the guards, they showed increasing levels of cruelty on increasingly passive prisoners.
Explanations of obedience point 3 : useful applications
Calley was convicted of his crimes.
His defence of only following orders’ was not accepted.
Therefore, if we can inform others to recognise the dangers of blind obedience to authority, and make sure people understand that they will be accountable for their actions, then we may reduce the amount of destructive obedience in society.
some criticisms of Milgram’s research may be unfounded, for example the suggestion that the research can enable people to get away with their behaviour by blaming an authority figure.
Milgram is not suggesting this, rather that we all need to be aware that only we are responsible for our behaviour.
This should reduce blind obedience to authority rather than increase it.
Explanations of obedience point 4 : support for legitimacy of authority
evidence from variations of Milgram’s procedure + from other research to support the idea that legitimacy of the authority figure has an impact on obedience behaviour.
when Milgram moved the study to a run-down office, and the experimenter was a member of the public, obedience dropped to 48%, from the 65% found in the original study when the experimenter was working in the prestigious Yale university.
Bickman found that 92% of pedestrians obeyed an order to give a stranger money for a parking meter when the person giving the order was dressed as a security guard, compared to only 49% when he was dressed in ordinary clothing.
This shows that when the authority figure has greater status, and more legitimate authority, they are more likely to be obeyed.
Explanations of obedience point 5 : power of legitimacy of authority
Tarnow showed this through studying aviation accidents that had occurred.
Data from NTSB showed a review of aircraft accidents in the US.
he found that a lot of dependence on the captain’s authority and expertise and the flight crew said nothing, even when they noticed the captain taking a risky approach.
The lack of monitoring led to 19/37 accidents being investigated.
Evaluation of situational factors : point 1 support for proximity
Milgram found that when the teacher and learner were brought into the same room, obedience dropped to 40%.
Furthermore, when the experimenter left the room and gave orders by telephone, obedience dropped to 20.5%, much reduced from the original 65% obedience rate.
This shows that having to directly face the consequences of your actions (proximity to the learner) has an effect on reducing obedience.
When people feel detached from the consequence, obedience is greater
Evaluation of situational factors : point 2 support for location and uniform
Bickman found that 92% of pedestrians obeyed an order to give a stranger money for a parking meter when the person giving the order was dressed as a security guard, compared to only 49% when he as dressed in ordinary clothes.
This supports the view that wearing a uniform leads to increased obedience.
Milgram found that when he moved his procedure away from Yale University (prestigious), to a downtown office, and the experimenter was a member of the public, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 48%.
this supports the view that location plays a part in obedience.
Both of these factors can be linked to the concept of legitimate authority.
both increase the impression of legitimacy of the authority figure and, therefore, increase obedience.
Evaluation of situational factors : point 3 fails to consider other factors
Kilman and Mann replicated Milgram’s study in Australia.
They found that only 16% of the participants shocked the learner at the maximum voltage level of 450V However, Mantell showed that it was 85% when conducted in Germany.
This cross-cultural comparison shows that in different societies, children may be socialised differently from a young age to be more, or less, obedient.
This suggests that while situational factors are important, other factors may play a more significant role in obedient behaviour.
Evaluating dispositional factors point 1 :research supports authoritarian personality
Zillmer et al reported that I6 Nazi war criminals scored highly on three of the F Scale dimensions.
Elms & Milgram found that the highly obedient participants in Milgram’s study scored significantly higher on the F scale than the less obedient participants.
Both of these studies offer support for the view that authoritarianism may lead to higher levels of obedience.
However, as Zillmer found that only 3 of the dimensions on the F-scale were relevant, we may question whether it is the authoritarian personality as a whole that is linked to obedience, or if it is a few specific traits that are a part of that personality type.
Evaluating dispositional factors point 2 :lack of internal validity
There is a difficulty establishing a cause and effect link between the authoritarian personality and obedience.
This is because the supporting research is correlational and therefore lacks internal validity.
There may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality.
Research by Meleon found that less educated people are more likely to display authoritarian personality characteristics than well educated people.
If these claims are correct, then it’s possible that it isn’t the authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience, but other factors, including levels of education.
These problems highlight the difficulty of establishing a dispositional basis of obedience.
Evaluating dispositional factors point 3 :research bias
it assumes that the authoritarian personality is limited to right wing individuals.
However, Conway devised a scale to measure authoritarian views in left wing individuals and found a parallel with Adorno’s results.
This shows that left-wing individuals are just as likely to display authoritarian traits as right wing individuals, and therefore may be just as susceptible to obeying authority as right-wing individuals.
This shows how the expectations of the researcher may affect our view of personality types that are likely to be associated with increased obedience, and giving us a limited understanding.
