factors affecting obedience

• situational factors affecting obedience

  proximity and status of authority
• proximity

  • presence of an authority figure affects likelihood of obedience occuring
  • presence of a legitimate authority has a stronger effect when authority figure is present as authority is visible e.g: uniform
• strength

  • milgrams variation 7 shows how proximity effects obedience
  • after giving first instructions, experimented leaves room communicates via telephone and level of obedience dropped to 22.5%
  • proximity affects obedience
• weakness

  • hofling study where nurses were given instructions with low proximity (over the phone) 21/22 nurses obeyed
• status of authority

  • status of an authority figure has an effect on obedience
  • depends on situation in which instructions are given & if an individual has authority within a particular situation more likely to have instructions obeyed e.g: teacher saying to stop talking in class
• strength of status

  • milgrams variation 13 supports status of authority affects obedience
  • a confederate dressed in lab coat gives instructions to participant after experimenter leaves the room
  • obedience fell to 20% suggesting status is important for obedience
  • weakness: sedikikes and jackson
• dispositional factors

  • gender
  • personality: LOC & authoritarian personality
• gender

  gilligan's moral reasoning theory suggests moral decisions is guided by differing principles in men and women

  • ethic of justice in men - valuing equity & fairness
  • ethic of care in women - valuing interpersonal connections
• strength of gender

  • evidence by gilligan and attanucci
  • male and female participants interviewed about real life moral dilemmas - overall men those justice orientation and women chose care orientation
  • gender differences affect obedience
• weakness of gender

  • evidence to suggests there is little difference in gender for obedience
  • burger (2009) 41 women and 29 men - 33% men disobeyed and 27.3% women disobeyed - scores are similar
  • therefore, isn't major difference in obedience between men and women
• locus of control

  • internal LOC - individuals are responsible for their own actions and less influenced by others - less obedient
  • external LOC - take less responsibility for actions and more influenced by others - obedient
• authoritarian personality

  • adorno believed strict parenting leads to children developing personality traits e.g: toughness, destructiveness
  • authoritarian personality is submissive to authority but harsh to those seen as subordinate to themselves
• strength of personality

  • research support
  • elms and milgram (1966) used F-scale with participants from milgrams studies, testing 20 fully obedient participants and 20 who were not. obedient participants scored higher on f-scale and had characteristics of authoritarian personality
  • suggests that obedience is related to personality characteristic of authoritarianism
• weakness of personality

  • researchers cannot claim that childhood experiences directly contribute to authoritarianism scores as elms and milgram studies are only correlational
  • other factors involved - obedience and personality may be caused by lower level of education (hyman and sheatsley, 1954)
  • authoritarian personality may not be main factor leading to obedience levels
• cultural factors

  • individualism/collectivism
  • power distance index
• individualism & collectivism

  • individualistic - value personal autonomy and self-reliance
  • collectivist - value loyalty to group and cooperation
• power distance

  • high PDI countries - expect to be told what to do as they are more accepting of hierarchical order & inequality in society = less likely to question orders from authority = more obedient
  • low PDI countries - expect to be able to discuss things equally = less obedient as they are likely to question those in power = less obedient
• strength of culture

  • hofstedes cultural dimension (PDI) is useful in predicting obedience levels of others
  • kilham and mann (1974) found low levels of obedience (28%) in australia and low power distance (36%). dolinski et al (2017) replication in poland found high levels of obedience (90%) with a high power distance (68%)
  • suggest that hofstedes power distance dimension is useful in predicting obedience
• weakness

  • most nations around the world show similar high levels of obedience
  • blass (2012) found an average of 66% obedience across other countries, compared with a 61% for US replications - countries varied in terms of collectivism and individualism levels but average obedience was similar
  • therefore can conclude that obedience is a universal social behaviour and culture does not affect it much