Obedience

• Obedience - Milgram’s research

  American male participants gave fake electric shocks to a ‘learner’ in response to instructions from an ‘experimenter’ (both confederates)

  Confederates answered questions through light systems, responses pre-recorded

  65% have highest shock of 450v

  100% gave shocks up to 300v

  Many showed signs of anxiety, e.g. sweating
• Milgram’s evaluation

  +research support, French TV documentary lund similar results

  -low internal validity, participants realised shocks were fake so ‘play acting’

  -ethical issues, deception meant participants could not properly consent
• Situational variables for obedience

  Proximity = obedience 40% with teacher and learner in same room, 30% for touch proximity

  Location = obedience 47.5% in run-down office building, university’s have authority

  Uniform = obedience 20% when experimenter was ‘member of the public’
• Situational evaluation

  +research support, Bickman showed power of uniform in field experiment

  +cross-cultural replications, Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee, decreased proximity led to decreased obedience

  -low internal validity, some of Milgram’s procedures were contrived so not genuine obedience
• Situational explanation - Agentic state

  Agentic state = acting as an agent of another person

  Autonomous state = free to act according to conscience

  Binding factors = allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain

  +Milgram’s participants continued givig shocks when experimenter responsible

  -limited explanation, doesn’t explain why some participants didn’t obey
• Situational explanation - Legitimacy of authority

  Created by hierarchical nature of society.

  Some people entitled to expect obedience.

  Destructive authority = problems arise when used destructively (e.g. Hitler)

  +explains cultural differences, in Australia 16% obeyed but 85% in Germany, related to structure of society

  -cannot explain all (dis)obedience
• Dispositional explanation - Authoritarian personality

  Adorno eat al described AP as extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it, contempt for inferiors

  Harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced onto scapegoats

  Used f-scale to study unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

  AP’s identify with strong people, have fixed cognitive style and hold stereotypes and prejudices
• Dispositional evaluation

  +research support, obedient participants had high f-scores (Elms & Milgram)

  -limited explanation, can’t explain obedience across a whole culture

  -political bias, authoritarianism is equated with right wing ideology

  -flawed evidence F-scale is basis of AP explanation but has flaws so not useful