Explanations for obedience + dispositional explanation

• What was Milgram's procedure?

  Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American male participants supposedly for a study of memory. Each participant arrived at Milgram's lab and drew lots for their role. A confederate ('Mr Wallace') was always the 'Learner' while the true participant was the 'Teacher'. An 'Experimenter' (another confederate) wore a lab coat. The procedure is shown in the diagram (left) and described in the text below. The Teacher could hear but not see the Learner. The Teacher had to give the Learner an increasingly severe electric 'shock' each time he made a mistake on a task. The shocks increased in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts. The shocks were fake but the shock machine was labelled to make them look increasingly severe. If the Teacher wished to stop, the Experimenter gave a verbal 'prod' to continue.
• What were the findings of Milgram's study?

  Key findings

  12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts (highest level). Observations (qualitative data) — participants showed signs of extreme tension. Three had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'.

  
  

  Other findings

  Before the study Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought the naive participants would respond. The students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts (so the baseline findings were unexpected). After the study, participants were debriefed. Follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated.
• What did Milgram conclude?

  We obey legitimate authority even if that means that our behaviour causes harm to someone else. Certain situational factors encourage obedience (Milgram investigated these, see next spread).
• What is a strength of Milgram's study? (replications)

  P - One strength is that replications have supported Milgram's research findings.

  E - In a French TV documentary/game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors) (Beauvois et al. 2012).

  E - 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram's participants, e.g. many signs of anxiety.

  L - This supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority.
• What is a limitation of Milgram's study? (internal validity)

  P - One limitation is that Milgram's study lacked internal validity.

  E - Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants guessed the electric shocks were fake. So they were 'play-acting'.

  E - This was supported by Perry's discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real (see top right).

  L - This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.

  C - However, Sheridan and King's (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy
• 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. This suggests the obedience in Milgram's study might be genuine.
• What is a limitation of Milgram's study? (blind obedience)


  P - One limitation is that the findings are not due to blind obedience.

  E - Haslam et al. (2014) found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the Experimenter, but those given the fourth prod disobeyed.

  E - According to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth prod required blind obedience.

  L - This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.
• How does proximity affect obedience?

  In the baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, Teacher and Learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

  In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher forced the Learner's hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate was 30%.

  In the remote-instruction variation, the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience was 20.5% and participants rate often pretended to give shocks.

  Explanation — decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. For example, when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated, the Teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient
• How does location affect obedience?

  The study was conducted in a run-down building rather than at the prestigious Yale University (as in the baseline). Obedience dropped to 47.5%. Explanation — obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected).
• How does uniform affect obedience?

  In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat (a kind of uniform). In one variation, he was called away by an 'inconvenient' phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations. Explanation —a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• What were the results of all the variations.
• What is a strength of situational variables? (research support)

  P - One strength is research support for the influence of situational variables.

  E - Bickman's (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/ tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands (e.g. pick up litter) to people on the streets of New York City.

  E - People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'jacket/tie' confederate.

  L - This shows that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
• What is a strength of Milgram's research? (situational variables - replication)

  P - Another strength is cross-cultural replication of Milgram's research.

  E - Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with Dutch participants, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees.

  E - They found 90% obedience, and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present).

  L - This shows that Milgram's findings are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures.

  C - However, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications took place in societies (e.g. Spain, Australia), culturally not that different from the US. Therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all (or most) cultures.
• What is a limitation of Milgram's research? (situational variables - low internal validity)

  P - One limitation is low internal validity in the studies.

  E - Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations (compared to baseline study) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation.

  E - In the variation where the Experimenter was replaced by 'a member of the public', even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out.

  L - Therefore it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and 'play-acted' (i.e. were influenced by demand characteristics).
• What is the agentic state?


  Act on behalf of another person.

  Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an 'agent' someone who acts for or in place of another. In an agentic state a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions.
• What is the autonomous state?


  Not an agent.

  'Autonomy' means to be independent or free. So a person in an autonomous state behaves according to their principles and feels responsible for their actions,
• What is the agentic shift?

  Moving to agentic state

  The shift from autonomy to being an 'agent' is called the agentic shift. Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. This person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
• What are binding factors?

  Reduce 'moral strain'.

  Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the 'moral strain' they feel. Milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims.
• What is a strength of the agentic state? (research support)

  P - one strength is that the agentic state explanation has research support.

  E - Most of Milgram's participants asked the 'Experimenter', 'Who is responsible if Mr Wallace (the Learner) is harmed?'

  E - When the Experimenter replied 'I'm responsible' the participants went through the procedure quickly without objecting.

  L - This shows participants acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour.
• What is a limitation of the agentic state? (research findings)

  P - One limitation is the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings.

  E - For example, Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that most nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to give an excessive drug dose.

  E - The doctor was an authority figure but the nurses remained autonomous and did not shift into an agentic state. The same is true for some of Milgram's participants.

  L - This shows that agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations.
• What is legitimacy of authority?

  We obey people further up a social hierarchy

  Most societies are structured hierarchically. People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us, e.g. parents, teachers, police officers, nightclub bouncers.

  Authorities have legitimacy through society's agreement.

  The power that authorities wield is legitimate because it is agreed by society. Most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly.

  We hand control over to authority figures.

  People with legitimate authority have the power to punish others. We give up some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly. We learn to accept authority during childhood (parents, teachers, etc.).

  Leaders use legitimate powers for destructive purposes.

  History has shown that some leaders (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, POI Pot) use legitimate authority destructively, ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways.
• What is a strength of the legitimacy of authority? (cultural differences)

  P - One strength is legitimacy can explain cultural differences.

  E - Research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority.

  E - For example, 16% of Australian women obeyed (Kilham and Mann 1974), 85% of German participants did (Mantell 1971

  L - This shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting upbringing
• What is a limitation of the legitimacy of authority? (cannot explain it all)

  P - One limitation is legitimacy cannot explain all (dis)obedience.

  E - People may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical authority structure.

  E - For example, most of Rank and Jacobson's nurses were disobedient, as were some of Milgram's participants

  L - This suggests that innate tendencies towards (dis)obedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority.
• What is the authoritarian personality?

  High obedience is pathological.

  Extreme respect for authority and contempt for 'inferiors'.

  Originates in childhood (e.g. overly strict parenting).

  Hostility is displaced onto social inferiors
• What is Adorno's procedure?

  The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans. Several scales were developed, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale). Examples from the F-scale (rated on scale 1 to 6 where 6 = agree strongly): 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn.' 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.
• What are the findings of Adorno's study?

  Authoritarians (who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with 'strong' people and were contemptuous of the 'weak'. They were conscious of their own and others' status, showing excessive respect and deference to those of higher status. z Authoritarian people also had a cognitive style where there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes (prejudices) about other groups.
• What is a strength of the authoritarian personality? (evidence)

  P - One strength is evidence that authoritarians are obedient.

  E - Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgram's original obedience studies

  E - They scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants.

  L - This suggests that obedient people may share many of the characteristics of people with an Authoritarian Personality.

  C - However, subscales of the F-scale showed that obedient participants had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. For example they did not experience high levels of punishment in childhood. This suggests a complex link and means that authoritarianism is not a useful predictor of obedience.
• What is a limitation of the authoritarian personality? (cant explain all behaviour)

  P - One limitation is authoritarianism can't explain a whole country's behaviour.

  E - Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and antiSemitic behaviour — but can't all have had the same personality

  E - It seems unlikely the majority of Germany's population had an Authoritarian Personality. A more likely explanation is that Germans identified with the Nazi state.

  L - Therefore social identity theory (see right) may be a better explanation.
• What is a limitation of the F-scale? (politically biased)


  P - One limitation is that the F-scale is politically biased.

  E - Christie and Jahoda (1954) suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology.

  E - Christie and Jahoda (1954) suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology.

  L - Therefore Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn't explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, i.e. it is politically biased.