Obedience

• What is the A+P of Milgram's obedience study?

  PROCEDURE: Learner (confederate) was attached to electrodes next door; Teacher (participant) and experimenter were in the same room - could hear the learner but not see him. Teacher was instructed to shock the learner everytime they got the question wrong, and increase the voltage by 15V each time. They didn't know it was fake, and were getting paid $4.50. 300V = dangerous (learner begged to be released)and 450V = deadly. The teacher was given 4 prods of encouragement if they were reluctant but if they still refused, the experiment was terminated
• What was the aim of Milgram's experiment?

  To test the "German's are different" hypothesis by testing how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
• What were the F+C of Milgram's experiment?

  Findings: all participant shocked up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V (even though it was labelled deadly). The participant were nervous, trembled, scratched their heads, sweated, stuttered and laughed maniacally throughout the experiment. 3 even had seizures.

  Conclusion: The Germans are not different. People will obey authority, even if it causes other people harm.
• what are the strengths of Milgram's experiment?

  Supported by other research - Sheridan and King - puppy experiment

  Bickman's research supports idea that uniform affects obedience

  Supported by cross-cultural research - Meeus et al.

  It increases our knowledge of human behaviour and the danger of obedience
• What are the limitations of Milgram's experiment?

  1974 = low temporal validity

  sample of American males only = low population validity = unrepresentative

  Unrealistic = low population validity and low mundane realism = not generalisable

  Unethical = decieved, uninformed consent, cannot withdraw, psychological harm
• Give research support for Milgram's study

  Bickman - supports idea that uniform affects obedience (police vs milkmaid - field experiment = increases mundane realism)

  Sheridan and King - real shocks to puppy = 75% obedience (male + female) (real shock, can see puppies = more realistic)

  Hofling et al - hospital experiment - 95% conformity (female)

  Le Jeu de La Mort - 2010 - similar results = still applicable to modern society
• Give research that contradict's Milgram's study

  Orne and Holland - participants = 'play-acting' as it was unrealistic - confirmed by Perry's research - only around 50% of participants believed it was real (2/3 were disobedient, rest could be demand characteristics)

  Alternative explanations : Haslam - Social Identity Theory participant only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims of the research ie 'experiment requires you to continue' but refused to blindly obey

  Smith + Bond - replications occured in westernised countries
• what are the variations of Milgram's study? 


  Proximity

  Uniform

  Location
• how and why did uniform affect obedience?


  In the variation the experimenter was called away and replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public' (confederate) wearing everyday clothes. Obedience dropped to 20% (lowest of variations)

  Uniforms are a symbol of authority so encourage obedience as we believe someone in uniform is entitled to our obedience because their authority is legitimate.
• how and why did location affect obedience?


  The variation was carried out in a run-down block rather than prestigious Yale university. Obedience fell to 47.5%

  Prestigious university gave the study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in the university because they percieved that the experiementer shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still relatively high in the variation as the participants percieved the 'scientific' nature of the procedure.
• how and why did proximity affect obedience?


  In this variation, the teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience sropped to 40%. In the touch proximity variation, where the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an 'electroshock plate', obedience fell to 30%. In the remote instruction variation, where the experimenter left the room and gave orders through the phone, obedience fell to 20.5% and participants often pretended to give shocks.

  Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions.
• what is agentic state?


  a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent). This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
• What is legitimacy of authority?


  an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we percieve have more authority iver us. Thsi authority is justified (made legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
• Give evidence that supports legitimate authroity as an explanation 


  Bickman - carried out experiment where a milkmaid and police officers gave instructions to random people on the street. Obedience was higher for the police officer due to percieved legitimacy of authority.

  Milgram - the location and uniform variation affected obedience due to percieved legitimacy of authority

  Eichmann - obeyed Nazi leaders because they had power over him and he percieved them as legitimate authority
• Give evidence that supports agentic state as an explanation 


  Eichmann - believed he was merely obeying orders and acting for someone else = no personal responsibility

  Hofling et al. - the nurses were going to administer the drugs on behalf of someone else, only obeying orders of a doctor who held more power in the social heirarchy
• Give evidence that contradicts agentic state as an explanation 


  Mandel - men shot people in a small town in Poland in WW2 despite not having directs orders to do so - they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred. They behaved autonomously
• What is a binding factor?


  An aspect of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and tghus reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling.

  Milgram proposed that this can be done but shifting the responsibility to the victim or by denying the damage they were doing to the victims
• What is a good thing about having legitimacy of authority?


  Their authroity is legitimate as it is agreed on by society (which is heirarchal). We accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly
• What are the negatives of legitimacy of authority?


  Some people are granted the power to punish others so we are willing to give up our independance and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately.

  Problems arise when authority becomes destructive and use their power for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.
• How does Milgram's experiment support agentic state?


  Most participants resisted giving the shocks at some point, and asked the experiment 'who is responsible if the learner is harmed'. Once the experimenter replied 'I am responsible', the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections. This shows that once participants percieved they are no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenter's agent.
• What is a limitation of the agentic state?


  An experiement by Rank and Jacobsen showed 16 out of 18 hospital nurses not obeying orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug to a patient. The difference between this and Hofling's hospital experiment is that the nurses were asked to administer a known drug and also confer with other nurses before making the decision.
• what is a strength of the legitimacy explanation?


  It is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Kilham and Mann found that only 16% of Australian women went up to 450V in a Milgram-style study, differing greatly from German participants where obedience was at 85%.

  This show that some cultures are more likely to accept an authority figure as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects how different societies are structured and how children are raised to percieve authority figures.
• what is a limitation of the legitimacy explanation?


  It cannot explain instances of disobedience in a heirarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. eg Rank and Jacobsen, and a significant minority of Milgram's participants who disobeyed authority.

  This suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others - possibly due to innate tendencies to obey/disobey and dispositional variables having a greater influence on behaviour than legitimacy of authority.
• give evidence that supports binding factors as an explanation 


  Orne and Holland - participants did not believe Milgram's procedure was real and were merely 'play-acting' / demand characteristics affecte their behaviour within the experiment.
• What is a real-world crime of obedience?


  My Lai massacre - Lieutenant Calley commanded and platoon of a division to fire at villagers and kill hundreds of innocent civillians, despite them not being a threat or enemy soldiers. Calley claimed that he was merely taking orders from his superiors and bore no direct responsibility for the massacre.
• What is an authoritarian personality?


  A type of personality that Adorno argued was more susceptible to obeying people in authority. These individuals are thought to also be moe submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
• What are the A+P of Adorno's research 


  Aim: to understand the anti-semitism of the Holocaust and teest the theory of obedience being caused by the personality of the individual rather than the situaion.

  Procedure: studied 2000+ white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups. Researchers developed many measurement scales. Participants answered statements on how far they agree with the it. An example is: 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn.'
• What are the findings of Adorno's experiment?


  Findings: people with authoritarian leanings (scored high on the scales) identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'. They're conscious of status and show respect, deference and servility to those of higher status (these traits are the basis of obedience)

  Adorno found they had a certain cognitive style which included very 'black and white' thinking (no fuzziness between categories of people) and had distinct stereotypes about other groups. Adorno found a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
• What traits does a person with an authoritarian personality have?


  Extreme respect and submissiveness to authority. They view society as weaker than it once was as we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values. They are extremely prejudiced and hostile towards inferiors, with conventional attitudes. They are uncomfortable with uncertainty (black and white thinking).
• What are the origins of authoritarian personality?


  Adorno claims it forms in childhood, as a result of harsh parenting, with strict discipline, expectations of loyalty, high standards and criticism of percieved failings. Parents give conditional love (dependant on the child's behaviour)

  Adorno argued these experiences create resentment and hostility in a child which cannot be expressed due to fear of punishment. So, their fears are displaced onto others through scapegoating (explains hatred towards inferior). This is a psychodynamic explanation.
• what are the scales used in Adorno's experiment?


  Anti-semitism : measures the relationship between opinions and attitudes by asking about views towards Jewish people

  Ethnocentrism: measures the attitudes towards other cultures

  Conservatism: measures opinions on change and traditions

  Fascism / f-scale: measures how far right you are
• what is a counterpoint to Adorno's research?


  When analysing the f-scale, they found that the obedient participants had a several characteristics unusual for authoritarians. Therefore the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex. The obedient participants were unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful prediction of obedience
• What is a limitation of authoritarianism? 


  It cannot explain obedience in the majority of a country's population. In pre-war Germany, millions were obedient, despite the fact that they must have differed in their personalities. It is unlikely that they all had authoritarian personalities. An alternative view is that they identified with the anti-semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the 'outgroup' of Jews, a social identity theory approach
• How does Adorno's research have political bias? 


  F-scale only measures tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology. Christie + Jahoda argued f-scale is a politically-biased interpretation of authoritarian personality. They point out left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism. Extreme left + right wing ideologies have a lot in common; both emphasise importance of complete obedience to political authority. Adorno's theory isn't a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across whole political spectrum.
• How is the f-scale flawed?


  Greenstein calls it 'a comedy of methodological errors' as it is a seriously flawed scale. For example, some people have a tendency to click agree on every answer. Therefore scores are not an accurate reflection of their attitudes.