social-psychological factors of obedience

• what inspired milgram's study?


  the events of the holocaust - offenders on trial for the war crimes said that their defence was that they were "only carrying out orders"
• the agentic state...


  is when a person acts as an "agent" on behalf of somebody with more authority than themselves
• what do those in the agentic state experience?


  high anxiety, moral strain
• what is the opposite to the agentic state?


  the autonomous state
• the autonomous state...


  when a person is free to behave according to their own principles, feels responsibility for their own actions
• agentic shift...


  the shift from "autonomy" to "agency"
• what did milgram suggest causes agentic shift?


  when a person perceives somebody else as a figure of authority

  the other person has more authority due to being higher up on the social hierarchy
• what are binding factors?


  aspects of a situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour
• examples of binding factors include...


  "it's not my fault that he keeps getting the answers wrong"
• blass and schmitt (2001)...


  found that people who saw milgram's study actually blamed the experimenter - indicated that people believed that the participants were agents of authority

  supported many historical events (such as the holocaust) - as a result of social pressure, people act inhumanely
• how could the agentic state be a limited explanation of milgram's study?


  obedience could be due to personality rather than the situation

  agency theory - why do some people disobey authority figures? 1/3 of Milgram's original study disobeyed
• what did keelman and hamiton (1989) state are the three factors of legitimacy?


  legitimacy of system

  legitimacy of authority within a system

  legitimacy of demands/orders given
• legitimacy of the system...


  is the extent to which the "body" (the place) is a legitimate source of authority

  example - school, government, family
• legitimacy of authority within a system...


  the power that individuals have to give orders because of their position within a system - linked to their status and hierarchy of a particular establishment
• legitimacy of the demands given...


  the extent to which the demands given are perceived to be legitimate by an authority figure

  example - a teacher could tell you to do your homework, but couldn't tell you to wash their car
• what is destructive authority?


  when powerful leaders abuse their legitimate power for destructive purposes

  example - hitler or stalin
• what is a limitation of legitimate authority?


  cannot explain all types of obedience where legitimacy is clear and otherwise accepted

  suggests that some people may be more or less obedient than others
• cultural differences in terms of obedience...

  in some cultures, authority man be much more likely to be accepted as legitimate

  this reflects the way that different society is structured
• adorno (1950)...


  claimed that a particular personality type would be more likely to obey authority - interested in investigating why nazi soldiers were so willing to kill during ww2
• what was the procedure of adorno's experiment?

  2000 middle-class, white americans

  developed the "F scale" to measure the relationship between a person's personality type and prejudiced views

  had the participants complete the test
• what did the "F" in the "F scale" stand for?


  facism - somebody who believes in one totalitarian state, ruling by one supreme leader (who controls everything and treats people very harshly)
• what did the "F scale" do?


  test unconscious attitudes towards radical groups

  test facism
• what were the findings of adorno's experiment?


  those who scored highly on the F scale identified with "strong" people and those who scored lower = "weak" people

  high scores were particularly cognitive - black and white thinking, very conscious of their own/others actions, positive correlation with the authoritarian personality
• the authoritarian personality...


  distinct personality pattern characterised by a strict adhere to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience/submission to authority

  provided an explanation as to why it takes very little pressure for some people to obey
• what is believed to be the origin of a person having the authoritarian personality?


  a harsh/punitive upbringing - shown little love and a lot of punishment

  this leads to a fear of parents - excessive authority towards authority

  or leads to a hatred of parents - anger displaced onto others
• what leads to the development of the authoritarian personality?

  disciplined upbringing - parents (particularly the father) are harsh, show little affection, issue harsh punishments

  unconscious hostility - consciously have high opinions of parents, but unconsciously feel very aggressive towards them

  displacement - hostility displaced onto "safer" targets - those who are weaker and unable to fight back

  prejudice - results in prejudice views and discriminatory behaviour
• milgram and elms (1966)...


  follow up study using the participants of milgram's original study - those who were fully obedient and went all the way to max voltage scored higher on authoritarian personality tests and lower on social responsibility tests

  supports adorno
• what happened when researchers analysed the subscales of the participants results?


  obedient participants didn't match all of the authoritarian personality traits - didn't have a harsh upbringing, didn't glorify their fathers, didn't have hostile attitudes towards their mothers
• what is the political bias of the F scale?


  the test measured obedience towards facism (extreme right-winged political group)

  adorno's theory = limited - can't explain obedience across the political spectrum
• what were the methodological problems of milgram and elms study?


  interviews with the participants were vunerable to interviewer bias - they knew the hypothesis of the study and they were aware of the information that they needed to confirm it

  their questioning would have been guided by the knowledge of if the participants would have been likely to have the authoritarian personality