Explanations for obedience

• Obedience

  = A form of social influence in which an 

  individual follows a direct order. The person

  issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

  How is this different from conformity?

  Conformity is an individual’s choice in response to group pressure, no one tells them to do anything
• Explanations for obedience (situational)

  Agentic state:

  Most people believe they’re in control of their actions & thoughts - that we are autonomous individuals

  We can therefore, can take responsibility for our actions however, we are conditioned to obey people with more authority than us due to being brought up in a social hierarchy . This obedience places us in an agentic state

  They give order, we obey, they take responsibility for our actions (agentic state).

  Autonomous person → agentic shift → agentic state.
• Milgram’s study:

  The Teacher’s (the participants) actions were ‘guilt-free’ because they didn’t make the choice to administer the shack but rather were directed by someone else. 

  Once a person enters an agentic state, binding factors take over

  • These are factors that allow person to feel less guilty.

  In the case of Milgram the Learner is blamed for volunteering to take part, downplaying the effects of shocks on learner, not wishing to appear rude by discontinuing the study.
• Legitimate authority

  Someone who has legitimate authority is perceived as having genuine authority that therefore gives them the right to give orders & punish.

  We live in a hierarchical society, conditioned to obey those higher than us therefore, they take responsibility for us (& our actions) so we give up some autonomy to let them exercise some control over us.

  We are more likely to obey legitimate authority.
• Milgram’s study:

  • Experimenter in charge 
  • white coat, in a lab
  • Yale university
  • image & prestige
  • Experimenter perceived as person in charge
• Agentic state AO3

  Research support

  • When asked - ‘who is in charge’, Milgram’s participants would say that the experimenter
  • When questioned further they explained that when experimenter took responsibility for teacher’s actions, they would find it hard to disobey the orders of the experimenter
  • Therefore, results suggest that participants did enter agentic state.
• Agentic state goes beyond just social influence

  • Fennis & Aarts (2012) found that being in an  Agentic state 

  meant that people feel less in control of own actions.

  • More likely to accept external sources of control from other people around them
  • Therefore, decreased personal control results in increased obedience  and increased  bystander apathy
  • less likely to help others in need  
  • Being in an agentic state therefore can explain a number of  other behaviours
• Doesn’t explain all examples of obedience

  • Police Battalion:
  • During the war German police shot many Polish civilians even though often officers were given the chance to be re-assigned to a different duty if didn’t want to.
  • Staub (1989): 
  • Suggested that German doctors at Auschwitz didn’t switch to agentic state when performing horrific operations on prisoners.
  • Instead suggested that doing these things over a long period of time caused them to obey therefore not switching their thinking.
• Legitimacy of authority AO3

  • The questions of ‘what is legitimate authority?’ explains cultural 

  differences in obedience studies as different cultures have different attitudes towards obedience.

  • Authority is more respected in some cultures as opposed to others. This is illustrated in how children are raised to perceive authority in different cultures.
  • This therefore, explains why obedience ranged from 16-85%.
• Doesn’t explain all disobedience

  • Even in hierarchies where authority is clear, instances of disobedience still happens.
  • Rank & Jacobson (1977): nurses ordered by a doctor to give an excessive drug dosage to patient.
  • 16/18 disobeyed, even though a doctor in a hospital is the clear authority figure.
  • Some of Milgram’s participants also showed disobedience
  • This suggests that innate levels of disobedience can ultimately have a greater effect than legitimate authority.
• Destructive authority

  • Legitimate authority can be the basis for why people follow orders to commit horrific crimes
  • History littered with people following orders of legitimate leaders.
  • It can be a force for evil as well.
• Situational factors as studied by Milgram

  • Factors specifically studied by Milgram.
  • Variations of his electric shock study 
  • Proximity 
  • Location
  • Uniform
• Proximity - Physical distance

  • If the teacher and  learner were in different rooms
  • Obedience  = 65%.
  • Same room
  • Obedience  = 40%.
  • Touch proximity
  • Obedience = 30%.
  • Remote 
  • Conformity = 20.5%.
  • Participants also pretended to give shocks.
  • Decreased proximity (further from each other) = psychologically distance from consequences of actions.

  ↓responsible = ↑likely to obey.
• Location

  • If participants were located at Yale University
  • Obedience  = 65%.
  • Run-down office building 
  • Obedience= 47.5%.
  • Being in the location of a University lab gave the study legitimacy and authority. Therefore participants are more likely to obey.
  • When in an office building whilst, less prestige, participants still obeyed because the study appeared to still be scientific & legitimate.
• Uniform

  • When in uniform 
  • Obedience = 65%.
  • The ‘Uniform’ of a scientist (white lab coat) gives legitimate authority.
  • When the Experimenter wore normal clothes 
  • Obedience = 20%.
  • Uniforms are a type of symbol of authority which encourages obedience and is seen as legitimate.
• Uniform - Application

  • 1969: police department in California changed their navy blue, paramilitary-style uniform and adopted a non-traditional, more ‘civilian’-style uniform.
  • With the aim of wanting to improve police-community relations.
  • After 8 years they went back to traditional uniforms.
  • Number of assaults on officers doubled when they wore new-style uniforms. These numbers dropped after switching back to old uniforms.
• Bickman (1974):

  • 3 confederates give orders to passers-by
  • Field exp, more realistic than lab exp.
  • Shows that uniform will make people more likely to obey.
  • We are socialised to recognise it as legitimate authority therefore obey
• AO3

  Research evidence

  • Bushman (1988): 
  • female confederates (security guard, business woman in suit, beggar) gave orders to passers-by.
  • Guard: 72%.
  • Suit: 48%.
  • Beggar: 52% (!).
  • Shows obedience occurs due to uniform, more realistic setting & with both sexes.
• Cross-cultural support

  Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986):

  • Participants were ordered to say stressful things to an interviewee (confederate) – job interview.
  • 92% obeyed.
  • Proximity was also shown: when person giving orders wasn’t present, obedience ↓.
  • Shows Milgram’s results about proximity not just limited to US.
• Cross-cultural support not always consistent 

  • Cross—cultural replications of Milgram were not very cross-cultural.
  • Smith & Bond (1998):
  • Only 2 non-western countries were included (India & Jordan).
  • Others that were included were not that  culturally different from US (Spain, Australia, UK etc.) and had similar concepts of authority.
  • Therefore, maybe Milgram’s results don’t apply to all cultures.