obedience

• what is obedience?

  refers to a type of social influence whereby someone acts in response to a direct order from a figure with percieved authority.

  there is also the implication that the person receiving the order is made to respond in a way that he/she would not have otherwise done without the order.
• situational variables affecting obedience

  • proximity
  • location
  • uniform
• proximity

  • in milgram, obedience levels were 65% when teacher + learner in different rooms
  • when teacher + leaner in the same room = obedience drops to 40%
  • in touch proximity when teacher is forced to place learner's hand on plate = obedience drops to 30%
  • in remote proximity, when experimenter gives instructions over phone = obedience drop to 20.5%
• proximity explanation

  decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
• location

  • in milgram's, obedience levels were 65% when study was conducted at Yale university
  • when study was conducted in a run-down building obedience levels drops to 47.5%
• location - explanation

  the setting of Yale university was legitimate and had authority - obedience was expected
• uniform

  • in milgram's, obedience levels were 65% when researcher wore a grey/white lab coat
  • when his role was taken over by an ordinary member of the oublic in everyday clothes obedience dropped to 20%
• uniform - explanation

  a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority. someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
• % of fully obedient participants

  • baseline study at Yale = 65%
  • location variation = 47.5%
  • proximity variation = 40%
  • touch proximity variation = 30%
  • remote-institution variation = 20.5%
  • uniform variation = 20%
• supporting research for location

  • hofling et al (1966) = studied nurses at different hospitals.
  • phoned 22 nurses as Dr Smith (fake)
  • instructed them to get a drug called 'Astrofen' (fake)
  • told them to give 20mgs to patient on ward - max dosage was 10mgs
  • this contradicted hospital rules. 21/22 obeyed
  • they were stopped on the way to administering the drug + debriefed
  • prior to study 21/22 nurses would not obey
• proximity refuting research - police battalion 101

  • challenges reference of obedience research
  • 13th july 1942, jozefow, poland - men of reserve police battalion 101 received orders to carry mass killing of jews.
  • commanding officer Major Wilhelm Trapp made an offer that anyone who 'didnt feel up to this duty' could be assigned other duties and a few took Trapp's offer (sent to guard vehicles in town)
  • vast of men obeyed order without protest and take jews into forest + shooting at a close range.
• supporting research: power of uniform

  bushman (1988)

  • female researcher was dressed in different ways
  • she stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter

  findings:

  how many obeyed:

  • in police-style uniform - 72%
  • as a business executive = 48%
  • as a beggar = 52%
• the agnetic state


  • milgran described state of mind that often from situations required to give out instructions as agnetic = we act as an agent for someone else, becoming instruments of authority figure rather than making own decisions
  • attitudes of agnetic state = not responsible for action as were ordered to do so
  • arguement used by Eichmann and others, in all walks of life
  • this contrasts to state of mind, 'autonomous' which ppl feel responsible for own behv + should be held account for it.
• why do people obey?

  • gradual commitment

  the first instructions were not particularly unreasonable; the shock of 15 volts was little more than a tingle, as had demonstrated to the ppt at the beginning.

  having administered this shock and then gone very gradually upscale, it then becomes very difficult to make a decision as to when to stop without appearing to behave in an unreasonable way.
• disposition


  a person's inherent qualities of mind and character
• the authoritiatian personality

  • rigid thinker
  • obeys authority
  • sees the world as black and white
  • enforces strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies
• right-wing authoritiatian

  • conventionalism - adherence to conventional norms and values
  • authoritiatian aggression - aggression towards those who violate these norms
  • authoritiatian submission - uncritical submission to legitimate authorities
• parenting may lead to authoritiatian personality

  • high demands and expectations
  • low responsiveness - little nurturing
  • negative feedback - mistakes tend to be punished harshly by yelling and physical punishment
• the F scale

  • was used by Adorno et al (1950) to measure different components that made up authoritiatian personality
  • those on the highest end of scale = authoritiatians
  • those individuals would be rigid thinkers and obey authority, and black + white thinkers etc.
  • Adorno also found those with highest score had been raised by authoritatrian parents - assume this system is normal
• adorno et al (1950) the authoritiatian personality

  • investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle class white americans
  • F scale rated 1-6
  • authoritiatians identified as 'strong' people + were contemptuous of the 'weak'
  • they were conscious of their own + other's status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status
  • authoritiatians had a cognitive style where there was no 'fizziness' betw categoried of ppl, with fixed + distinctive stereotypes about other groups
• evaluation

  strength that authoritiatian are obedient:

  elms + milgram (1966) interviewd 20 fully obedient ppts from milgram's original obedience studies. they scored significantly higher on F scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient ppts. this suggests obedient people may share characteristics of authoritiatians
• evaluation - weakness?

  differences between authoritiatian and obedient participants:

  when elms + milgram asked ppts about their upbringings, many of the fully obedient reported of having a goof relationship with parents, rather than having grown up in the overly strict family environment associated with the authoritiatian personality.
• evaluation - real life application?

  education may determine authoritiatianism + obedience:

  • research found that less educated people are consistently more authoritiatian than the well educated
  • milgram alos found that ppts with lower levels of education tended to be more obedient than those with higher levels of education
  • this suggests that instead of authoritiatianism causing obedience, lack of education could be responsible for both authoritiatianism + obedience
  • as a result, any apparent casual relationship between authoritiatianism + obedience may be more illusory than real