Obedience

    Cards (42)

    • What is obedience?
      A form of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from a figure with perceived authority
    • Aim of Milgram's shock study
      To investigate whether in certain circumstances a normal person would give somebody a potentially lethal electric shock if told to do so by an authority figure
      • How can ordinary people commit acts of evil
    • Milgram's shock study - research methods
      • Sampling method: Advert put out to Yale university students for a study on memory - volunteer sampling
      • Experimental method: Lab experiment
      Roles:
      • experimenter wore a lab coat
      • teacher - ppt
      • student - actor
    • Milgram's procedure
      • ppts had to pull a card to be assigned their role - it was fixed. The confederate always 'drew' 'learner' while the ppt always 'drew' 'teacher'. An 'experimenter' directed the study
      • ppts were first given an electric shock to know how it felt
      • teacher could not see the student but could hear them / communicate
      • teacher had to give the student a fake electric shock if they got a question wrong on the questionnaire
      • electric shock started at 150 volts increasing in 15v increments, max = 450v
      • If ppts refuse to continue then they were given 4 prompts to continue (please continue, the experiment requires you to continue, it's absolutely essential that you continue, you have no other choice you must go on)
      • the shocks were not real but the naive ppts thought they were - it was a tape recording
    • Milgram's findings
      • all ppts shocked up to 300 volts
      • despite hearing students banging on wall and protesting, 65% of ppts shocked all the way up to 450 volts
      • ppts were clearly uncomfortable with doing so (sweating, trembling - 3 had seizures
    • Milgram's shock study - ppts
      40 American men volunteered to take part in a study of memory
    • Milgram's conclusion
      "we are puppets controlled by the strings of society"
      • German people are not different - Americans were just as willing to obey harmful orders
    • Weakness of Milgram's research - findings can't be generalised
      P: the findings of his study are limited to generalisability
      E: Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory which is very different to real life situations of obedience where people are asked to follow more subtle instructions
      Ex: a bias sample of 40 male American volunteers was used which means that we are unable to generalise the findings to other populations e.g. non-American females
      L: findings are not reflective of real life obedience and so holds little real world value
      C: A French game show replicated Milgram’s study, with 80% of ppts delivering a 460V shock. Their behaviour (e.g. anxiety, nervous laughter) mirrored Milgram’s ppts, supporting the reliability of his findings.
    • Weakness of Milgram's research - didn't test what he intended to measure
      P: Milgram may not have actually been testing what he intended to measure
      E: Orne and Holland argued that the ppts behaved the way they did because they didn't think that the electric shocks were real. E.g. Perry identified when listening to recordings of the experiment many ppts expressed doubts as to whether the electric shocks were real. She believes only half of ppts believed they were real
      Ex: Yet Milgram reported that 75% of his ppts said they believed the shocks were genuine
      L: findings are inaccurate and ppts have been reporting to demand characteristics, thus weakening the validity of findings
      C: Sheridan & King (1972) found 54% of men and 100% of women gave real shocks to a puppy, suggesting Milgram’s findings were genuine as people obeyed even with real harm involved.
    • Weakness of Milgram's research - unethical
      P: It's considered highly unethical
      E: Baumrind recognised that Milgram deceived his ppts by letting the ppts believe the roles were allocated randomly and that they were really administering electric shocks. This means that the ppts could not fully consent to the study
      Ex: Additionally, as a result of administering the electric shocks the ppts experienced high levels of psychological harm
      L: This imposes the question whether Milgram's study caused more harm than good
      C: However, when they surveyed post study, 84% of ppts said that they were glad they took part in the study
    • What are situational variables?
      Factors in the environment that can affect the results of a study
    • Milgram's variations
      Milgram carried out his obedience study again, varying factors such as:
      • proximity of the teacher/learner
      • location of the study
      • uniform (what the experimenter was wearing)
      He did this to see if these factors affected the obedience of the ppts
    • Situation variable - proximity
      Baseline study: the teacher could only hear, not see the learner
      • Proximity variation 1: teacher and learner are in the same room - obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
      • Proximity variation 2: teacher forces learners' hand onto electronic plate - obedience dropped to 30%
      • Proximity variation 3: experimenter left the room and gave the teacher instructions by phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%
      This suggests that the closer the teacher was to the learner, obedience fell because they felt more responsible for their actions
    • Situation variable - location
      Baseline study: run at prestigious Yale University
      • Location variation 1: conducted in run down office block - obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%
      This suggests that the location of an environment determines obedience rates. When the location is more prestigious, obedience increases, because this assumes perceived authority.
    • Situation variable - uniform
      Baseline study: experimenter wore a grey lab coat
      • Uniform variation 1: experimenter called away and replaced by an ordinary member of public in everyday clothes - obedience dropped from 65% to 20%
      This suggests that uniform determines obedience rates. When someone is dressed in a way that perceives authority, obedience increases
    • Weakness of Milgram's variation research - justifies evil behaviour
      P: It creates a danger of the situational perspective justifying evil behaviour
      E: Mandel criticises Milgram's situation explanations of obedience for acting as excuses for evil behaviour. We have to remember that the reason Milgram first conducted his studies was to try and explain why the Nazi's carried out such horrific acts of evil
      Ex: It is offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazi's were simply obeying orders implying they were victims of situation factor beyond their control
      L: Milgram's variation research is dangerous if used as a sole explanation for obedience, Milgram should have also emphasised the importance of dispositional factors too
      C: Despite this, it has given us deep insights into human behaviour and how situational factors can influence individual actions
    • Strength of Milgram's variation research - replicated findings across cultures
      P: His findings have been replicated in other cultures
      E: Meeus and Raajmakers used a more realistic procedure than Milgram to study obedience in Dutch ppts. They were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate for a job. 90% of ppts obeyed
      Ex: The researchers also replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity as when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically
      L: Milgram's findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too
      C: Replications of Milgram’s study lack cultural diversity. Smith & Bond found only two replications between 1968–1985 were in non-Western countries (India & Jordan), so it's unclear if Milgram’s findings apply across all cultures.
    • Weakness of Milgram's variation research - ppts knew it was faked
      P: ppts may have been aware the procedure was faked
      E: Orne and Holland criticised Milgram's studies for lacking mundane realism. For e.g. the lab setting and extra manipulation of variables may have allowed the ppts to catch onto the aim of the study
      Ex: Milgram himself recognised this and was concerned that ppts may have shown demand characteristics
      L: We cannot be clear that the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience and therefore Milgram's research may actually tell us very little about obedience
      C: Bickman replicated Milgram's study and found people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than one in a jacket and tie. This real-world study supports Milgram’s uniform variation.
    • What are situational explanations?
      External factors in the environment or social context that influence behaviour
    • Adolf Eichmann and Milgram background info
      • Adolf Eichmann - He stood trial in 1961 for war crimes. He had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders
      • Milgram - This led Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take accountability. Instead, they believe they are acting for someone else i.e. they are an agent
    • AO1: Autonomous state
      Autonomy means to be independent or free
      A person in an autonomous state:
      • is free to behave according to their own principles
      • feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
    • AO1: Agentic state
      An agent is someone who acts for / in place for another
      A person in an agentic state:
      • follows orders from an authority figure, even if they conflict with their personal sense of right and wrong (moral strain).
      • feels powerless to disobey
      • absolves themselves of responsibility, believing blame for negative consequences lies with the authoritative figure
      Authority figure: someone who has greater power than you because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy
    • AO1: Agentic shift
      When a person perceives someone else as an authority figure, they shift from autonomy to agency
    • AO1: Binding factors
      Many of Milgram's ppts said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so. Milgram wondered why they remained in an agentic state.
      • Milgram suggested that the answer is binding factors: aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they are feeling.
      • Milgram suggested there are several strategies that individuals use, such as: shifting the responsibility to the victim ('he was foolish to volunteer') or denying the damage they were doing to the victims
    • Weakness of the agency theory as an explanation for obedience - doesn't explain research findings 

      P: It doesn't explain many research findings about obedience
      E: Hofling found that nurses obeyed to administering double the daily dose of a 'fake drug' at the request of an unknown 'Dr Smith'. Rank & Jacobson replicated this study and found that 16 / 18 nurses disobeyed orders to give an overdose of Valium, a familiar drug - suggesting that obedience is lower when nurses feel confident challenging authority.
      Ex: Despite the doctor being a clear authority figure, almost all nurses remained autonomous due to their expertise of knowledge
      L: the agentic shift can only account for some situations and is reductionist for failing to take other explanations into account e.g. expertise of knowledge
      C: Despite criticisms, Milgram’s agency theory has had a lasting impact by, helping people recognise manipulation and resist unjust orders.
    • Strength of the agency theory - Milgram's studies support agentic state
      P: Milgram's own studies support the agentic state explanation of obedience
      E: Most of his ppts resisted giving shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter questions such as 'who is responsible if X is harmed?'. When the experimenter replied, I'm responsible, the ppts often carried on with no further obligations.
      Ex: Once ppts perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they shifted autonomous state to agentic state to help reduce their moral strain
      L: This is as Milgram suggested in his agency theory, therefore strengthening it as an explanation for obedience
      C: Not all of Milgram’s ppts shifted responsibility. One ppt stopped at 225V and said, “I would put it on myself entirely,” when asking who was responsible, suggesting the agentic state is reductionist as it overlooks dispositional factors like personality.
    • Weakness of the agency theory - simplistic
      P: It is too simplistic
      E: Adorno et al found that people with a strong authoritarian personality (conscious of status, extreme respect for those of higher status) are more likely to obey
      Ex: This shows that dispositional factors play a factor in obedience too
      L: Therefore, the agency theory as an explanation of obedience is too simplistic as it only accounts for situational factors
    • Legitimacy of authority
      Is a situational explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
      • most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. This means that some people in certain positions hold authority over us e.g. the police
      • a consequence of legitimacy of authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others
      • legitimacy of authority shows culture capital e.g. George Floyd
    • Destructive authority
      Problems can arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. History has often too shown that charismatic and powerful leaders such as Hitler can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes
    • Strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience - accounts for cultural differences
      P: It is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
      E: Milgram found that 65% of Americans went all the way to 450 volts, whilst Kilharn and Mann found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way and Mantell found 85% of German ppts went all the way
      E: This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience, dependent on societal structures and upbringing
      L: the legitimacy of authority can explain why some cultures are more obedient than others
      C: It is argued whether Kilharn and Mann were actually testing for cultural differences as they had an all female sample and when replicating the study with Australian males, obedience rose to 40% which is closer to Milgram's 65%. Larger, more diverse sample sizes are required to fully understand
    • Strength of legitimacy of authority - explains obedience in real world
      P: Legitimacy of authority helps explain obedience in real-world scenarios, especially in structured hierarchies
      E: in the military or police force, individuals are trained to follow commands from those in higher positions.
      Ex: This explains why soldiers may follow orders even when they lead to harm, as they perceive the authority as legitimate and responsible for the consequences.
      L: This increases the theory’s external validity, as it can be applied beyond lab settings.
      C: However, it may oversimplify obedience by ignoring moral reasoning, which can also influence whether orders are followed.
    • Weakness of legitimacy of authority - doesn't explain why ppl disobey
      P: The theory struggles to explain why some people disobey legitimate authority despite recognising their power.
      E: In Milgram’s study, 35% of ppts refused to deliver the highest voltage, even though the experimenter appeared authoritative and wore a lab coat.
      Ex: This suggests that individual differences, such as moral values or personality traits, also play a role in obedience.
      L: Therefore, legitimacy of authority alone may be reductionist, as it doesn’t fully account for dispositional factors.
      C: That said, the theory still provides a useful framework for understanding how authority can influence behaviour in structured settings.
    • What are dispositional variables?
      Internal characteristics cause people to act the way they do / influence an individual's behaviour, thoughts and feelings
    • Dispositional explanation of obedience background info
      • Just like Milgram, Adorno and his colleagues wanted to understand the horrific acts of the Holocaust
      • However, their research led them to draw very different conclusions from Milgram's
      • They believed that the causes of such a disorder lie in the personality of the individual rather than in the situation
    • Define authoritarianism
      strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom
    • Define prejudice
      Discriminating feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership
    • Adorno et al (1950) study
      • Sample: 2000 middle class white Americans
      • Method: used several measurement scales, including the F-scale (potential-for-fascism scale)
      • Findings: He found a positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
      • Conclusion: Adorno suggested that there are a certain type of people who are especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Adorno said these people have an authoritarian personality
    • People with an authoritarian personality:
      • Show an extreme respect for authority
      • view society as weaker than it once was and needs strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values
      • show contempt for those of inferior social status
      • believe everything is either right or wrong - have an inflexible view on the world and are uncomfortable with uncertainty and change
      • believe that people who are 'other' are responsible for the ill of society
      • are more likely to obey orders from a source of authority
    • People with an authoritarian personality experienced:
      • Extremely strict discipline
      • an expectation of absolute loyalty
      • impossibly high standards
      • severe criticism of perceived failings
      • conditional love (I will love you if...)
      Adorno et al believed that the authoritarian personality type forms in childhood, as a result of strict parenting
      • These childhood experiences create an adult who carries resentment and hostility towards their parents
      • But they cannot express these feelings towards their parents for fear of punishment.
      • Instead, they express these feelings onto those perceived as weaker; this is called scapegoating
    • Strength of Adorno's theory of authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience - positive correlation
      P: research supporting the idea there is a positive correlation between authoritarianism and obedience
      E: Elms and Milgram interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and been fully obedient. They all completed the f-scale as part of the interview. These 20 ppts scored significantly higher on the f-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient ppts
      Ex: those more obedient have a stronger authoritarian personality
      L: supporting research strengthens Adorno's view that authoritarian personality is an explanation of obedience
      C: The F-Scale has been criticised for response bias and being a 'comedy of methodological errors' - agreeing with all items, can falsely indicate an authoritarian personality (Greenstein)
    See similar decks