Obedience

• When an individual is in an agents state they feel removed from their actions as they feel they are simply obeying orders
• Milgrim's (1963) work on obedience drew fro the idea that people will obey an authority figure if specific situational factors are present, even to the point of destructive behaviours
• The agentic state allows people to minimise responsibility and guilt about their negative actions because they are acting under someone else command- consequences of their actions cannot be held to blame themselves
• The agentic state is made possible by the presence of a legitimate authority figure who has the status/ position to issue demands or orders
• Social hierarchies stand or fall according to whether people adhere to norms expected of them in society: further up the hierarchy the more obedience they would expect
• Obeying orders from an individual who commands more obedience allows for the responsibility of your cations to be shifted onto them
• A binding factor is an aspect of a situation that allows the person to ignore or minimised the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘moral train’ they are feeling
• An authority figure is someone who has legitimate status to issue orders: could be official or unofficial(school bully)
• If someone is perceived as an authority figure then they are more likely to be obeyed and have their orders followed
• Research by Bickman (1974) showed:

  • more likely for people to obey a confederate dressed as a security guard than a milk man/ plain clothes
  • plain clothes lead to lowest level of obedience
  • any uniform confers authority
• Being in charge can be stressful due to the responsibility and this could lead to a corrupt power enacting destructive obedience. Lack of obedience:

  • punishment- better to not question the motivation behind the order
  • withdrawal of social approval
• Strengths of Explanations of obedience:

  Agency theory has strong external validity (holocaust)

  Legitimacy of authority has been supported by research evidence (Bickman 1974)
• There are 2 explanations for obedience: Agentic state and the Legitimacy of authority
• Limitations of the explaination of obedience:

  Agency theory cannot explain why some people do not obey- even when they would be justified in blaming someone for their actions- only offers situational explanation of obedience: not dispositional

  Both of these explanations for obedience are deterministic- implying that those who commit acts of destructive obedience have no control over their actions- negates idea that people are autonomous and able to exercise free will
• Milgram (1963) devised investigation into obedience in response to the atrocities committed during WWII: hypothesis was that al Germans must have different personalities to all nations due to their involvement (dispositional approach)
• The dispositional approach: the measuring personal characteristics that helps to explain individual attitudes and behaviour, assuming obedience is caused by personality factors
• Milgram’s (1963) study procedure:

  Each ppt given role of ‘Teacher’ seemingly at random- met Mr Wallace (confederate) he was the ‘Learner’: strapped into chair attached to electrodes

  Teacher (in another room) gave leaner trigger word which was matched with a word that the Learner had (supposedly) memorised

  Learner then pressed button to indicate their answer: if got wrong then Teacher had to issue electric shock that went from 15-450 volts
• Sample of Milgrams (1963): 40 males aged 20-50 years old from a variety of different backgrounds. From a volunteering sample (leaflets and advertisements), paid $4.50 for their time
• Throughout Milgrams experiment the teacher was given prompts by present experimenter if seemed reluctant to go ahead: ‘the experimenter requires you to continue’. Learner appeared to be making noises in pain
• Findings of Milgrams experiment: dependent variable measured as no. of people that went up to 450 volts-

  65% went to 450

  105 went to 300

  Behavioural response's: shaking, crying, sweating and a couple of seizures
• Strengths of Milgrams study:

  other research on obedience (Hofling et al 1966) reflects similar findings- good external validity as effects are serve in the real world

  Effectively displays how destructive obedience does not happen immediately as started on 15 volts
• Limitations of Milgrams study:

  Lacks internal validity as potentially particpants realised the shocks were fake and simply plaid along

  Hugely compromised in terms of ethics as they were- deceived, harmed (psychologically and physically), cannot be replicated today, right to withdraw was not made clear
• Three situational factors effecting obedience: proximity, uniform and location
• Proximity affects how likely you are to obey someone- destructive obedience more easily achieved if person being harmed outside your sight. When teacher was in separate room to the leaner obedience at 60%, dropped to 45% when placed in the same room
• Uniform is a factor that effects conformity: if an individual is perceived to be an authority figure they are more likely to be obeyed- Bickman (1974) more likely to obey a confederate in a security guard outfit than a milk man/ normal clothes (lowest obedience)

  Obedience taught directly and indirectly

  Milgrams: experimenter wore grey lab coat- replaced by a man in plain clothes and only 20% went up to 450 volts
• location is a factor that effects obedience: Milgrams study conduced at Yale university confers status. In a run down building particpants who went up to 450 volts was 47.5%
• Situational variables strengths:

  high ecological validity due participants lack of awareness of study

  degree of control with its three distinguished independent variables

  Standardised procedure
• Limitations of situational variables:

  More difficult to fake and convince the participants (act shocked when shock plate on hand)

  situational variables could be used and used for nefarious reasons- acts of cruelty can be blamed on circumstance not the people
• Authoritarian personality is a dispositional explanation for obedience stating that it is based on characteristics/ personality traits of an individual- result of experiences in childhood
• Adorno proposed the concept of the authoritarian personality: takes side of nurture and links closely with the psychodynamic approach
• Adorno (1950) devised questionnaire ‘F- scale’ (fascism)- fixed responses on s scale from disagree strongly- agree strongly

  Around 2000 middle-class white Americans completed the scale

  Analyses of the results concluded that people with an authoritarian personality exhibit following traits: more obedient, believe in social hierarchies, more rigid in their views ‘black and white’.

  They disdain anyone showing ‘weakness’- eg: conscientious objectors and look down on those they view as below them in the social hierarchy
• Authoritarian personalities may feel resentment/ anger towards. Authority figures (parents) but project these negative feelings onto lower- status people
• Adorno suggest the authoritarian personality forms due to overbearing, doctoral parents in childhood: exerting strong discipline, high expectations and love based on conditions.

  Children identify with their parents thus forming the authoritarian personality
• Elms and Milgram (1966) replicated Milgram 1963:

  Took 20ish ppts who went up to 450 volts and 20ish who refused to

  Made them complete the F- scale (some questions include open questions able relationship with parents)

  Found that: high- obedience scored higher on F-scale and reposted they did not feel close with their fathers- reported feels of admiration for the experimenter in Milgrams study
• Strengths of Dispositional Explanations:

  • F-scale questionnaire is replicable as uses standardised questions- gains robust quantitive data
  • large sample size and quantitve data means scale can be tested for reliability
  • acknowledgment of dispositional factors adds dimension to Milgrams OG study- helps address gaps in the conclusions drawn
• Limitations of Dispositional Explanations:

  • questionnaire data is not 10% valid as people may lie, misremember details or be prone to social desirability bias (presenting as ideal self)
  • theory is overly simplistic as not everyone who shows high levels of obedience has an authoritarian personality: reductionist and deterministic