Obedience

• Stanley Milgram


  Developed a basline procedue to asses obedience levels - adapted later to more variations which affected obedience
• Obedience


  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order - person issuing order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behavior is not forthcoming
• Electrocution - findings


  Every pp delivered shocks to 300 Volts

  * 12.5% (5 pps) stopped at 300 V

  * 65% continued to the highest lvl of 450 V

  Milgram - collected also qualitative date, observations: pps signs of extreme tension, sweat, tremble, stutter, 3 had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'.
• Findings - other data

  M asked 14 psych students to predict pps behavior. Estimated no more than 3% of pps would continue to 450 V.

  * Shows findings were unexpected - underestimated how obedient they were

  * All pps in baseline study were debriefed + assured their behavior was entirely normal - sent follow-up questionnaire 84% said to be glad they participated
• Conclusions


  He suspected that there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience - conducted further studies to investigate
• # Strength

  
  

  EVAL: Research support

  * Milgram's experiment were replicated in a **French documentary** about reality TV - focused on a **game show** made especially for the programme.

  * Pps believed they were in a game - paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other pps (actors) in front of studio audience.

  * 80% of pps delivered 460 V** to "unconscious man"" - behavior is shown identical to Milgrams pps - showing signs of anxiety * *supports milgrams findings to obedience to authority and not due to special circumstances"
• # Weakness

  
  

  EVAL: Low internal validity

  * Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test - said about 75% of his pps believed shocks were real

  * **Martin Orne + Charles Holland (1968)** believed they were only 'play acting' as they didn't believe in the setup

  * Gina Perry (2013) research backs this up - listened to tapes of M's pps and said only half believed them to be true

  * two thirds of pps were disobedient - suggests pps may have been responding to demand characteristics - fufilling the aims of the study
• # Weakness

  
  

  EVAL: Alternative interpretation of findings


  * M's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified

  * Alex Haslam et al (2014) - M's pps obeyed with the first 3 prods given by experimenter but not the 4th ('you have no other choice you must go on') - disobeyed without exception

  * Social identity theory - M's patients only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research

  * Shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of M's findings - M himself suggested 'identifying with the science is a reason for obedience
• # Strength

  
  

  EVAL: External validity

  * External validity has been established by supporting studies –

  Hofling et al (1966) observed the behaviour of doctors and nurses in a natural experiment (covert observation). The researchers

  * Found that 95% of nurses in a hospital obeyed a doctor

  (confederate) over the phone to increase the dosage of a patient’s medicine to double what is advised on the bottle.

  * This suggests that ‘everyday’ individuals are still susceptible to obeying destructive

  authority figures.
• Situational variables


  Features of immediate physical + social environment which may influence a person's behavior

  * Proximity

  * Location

  * Uniform
• # Teacher + learner in same room

  
  

  Proximity - basic


  * Baseline - different rooms

  * Proximity - learner + teacher same room

  * Obedience rate - drops from original 65% to 40%
• Touch Proximity


  * Learner will put hand on 'electroshock plate' if gave wrong ans

  * If unwilling the teacher will force the hand onto the plate

  * obedience drops further 30%
• Remote instruction proximity


  * experimenter leaves room + give instructions to the teacher by phone

  * Obedience reduces to 20.5%

  * The pps also frequently pretended to give shocks
• Proximity - explanation


  Decreasing proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

  * if they were physically separated (baseline) - the teacher is less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so were more obedient
• # Yale Uni --> run down office

  
  

  Location


  * Milgram - moves the study to a run-down office block rather than Yale Uni (*prestigious*) - locations drops to 47.5%
• Location - explanation


  * The uni gave M's study **legitimacy + authority**

  * Pps more obedient in this location as they percieved that the Experimenter also shared this legitimacy + the obedience was expected

  * BUT odience still quite high in office block as the pps percieved the 'scientific' nature of the procedure
• Uniform


  * Baseline - experimenter wearing lab coat (a symbol of their authority)

  * Here experimenter called away by phone call at the start of procedure and so the role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' (confed) in everyday clothes instead of lab coat

  * Obedience - falls to 20% (the lowest of these variations)
• Uniform - explanation


  Uniforms** encourage obedience** as its widely recognised as **symbols of authority**. We accept someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authortiy is legitimate.

  * We believe them to have more knowledge than us --> obedience
• # Limitation

  
  

  EVAL: Artificial situation + task


  * Paricipants may have known that they were in a research study + simply go along with what is expected (demand characteristics)

  * Susan fiske (2014) - 'Asch's groups were not very groupy' - they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life - the findings do not generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity might be important
• # Limitation

  
  

  EVAL: Limited application


  * The pps were American men

  * Other research suggest women = more conformist - concerned about social relationhsips + being accepted (Neto 1995)

  * The US is more individualist culture - more concerned about themselves rather than their social group

  * In collectivists culture (social more important than individual) e.g. China - conformity rates are higher
• # Strength

  
  

  EVAL: Research support


  * Support from other studies for the effects of task difficulty

  * Todd Lucas et al (2006) - asked their pps to do 'easy' + 'hard' math problems.

  * Pps given answ from 3 other students (fake) --> pps conformed (agreed with wrong ans) more when ques were harder

  * Shows Asch was correct in claiming - task difficulty affects conformity
• Counter to research support

  * Lucas et al - conformity is complex - pps with higher confidence in their math abilities conformed less on hard tasks than those with low confidence

  * Shows an individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting situational variables
• Situational explanations


  * Agentic state

  * Autonomous state

  * Binding factors

  * Legitimacy of authority

  * Destructive authority
• Agentic state


  * people act for someone else - they are an 'agent' (is someone who acts for or in place of another) - they may experience high anxiety ('moral strain') when they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey
• Autonomous state


  * Opposite of agentic state

  * 'Autonomy' - be independent/free

  * They are free to behave according ot their own principles + feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
• Agentic shift


  * shift from autonomy to agentic

  * Milgram - occurs when a person perceives someone else as authority figure (have greater power, higher position - social hierarchy)
• Binding factors


  Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behavior - reduces the 'moral strain' they feel.

  * Milgram - proposed num of strategies that the indv uses e.g. shift responsibility to the victim ('he was foolish to volunteer')/ denying the damage they were doing to others
• Legitimacy of authority


  * Social hierarchy - police, teachers, parents, the govt - have authority over us at times

  * Authority is legitimate - as it is agreed by society, believe they are allowed to exercise social power over others = allows society to function smoothly

  * CONSEQUENCE = people are granted the power to punish others

  * We give up some of our independence + to hand control of our behavior to people we trust
• Destructive authority


  * Authority can become destructive - e.g. Hitler, Stalin = use their power for destructive purposes

  * Milgram's study - destructive behavior apparent - experimenter used prods to order pps to behave in ways that go against their consciences
• # Strength

  
  

  EVAL: research support

  * support the role of the agentic state - obedience

  * Milgram's study - pps often asked ques about procedure - "who is responsible is ... is harmed?"", experimenter replied with ""me""
• * pps went through procedure + no further objections - they no longer feel responsible, were the experimenter's agent"
• # limitation

  
  

  EVAL: limited explanation

  * doesn't explain some research findings

  * Steven rank + Cardell Jacobson's (1977) study: 16 out 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor (authority fig) to administer an excessive drug dose to patient - nurses remaind autonomous + so did M's pps

  * agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
• # Strength

  
  

  EVAL: explains cultural differences

  * Kilham + Mann (1974) - **16% of Australian** women went to 450 V in milgram style sutdy

  * David Mantell (1971) - German pps - 85%

  * Shows in some cultures - authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate + entitled to demand obedience. Reflectss ways diff societies are structured
• # Limitation

  
  

  EVAL: cannot explain all (dis)obedience


  * legitimacy cannot explain disobedience when legitimacy of authority is clear + accepted

  * Rank + Jacobsons - nurses still disobeyed

  * M's pps disobeyed even with experimenter's authority

  * People vary in obedience
• Dispositional explanation


  Highlights the importance of an individuals personality - contrasts situational explanations
• The Authoritarian personality


  A type of personality that Adorno et al argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status + dismissive of inferiors
• The Authoritarian personality - depth

  • They view society as 'weaker' - we need strong + powerful leaders to enforce traditional values e.g. love of county + family
  • Show contempt for those of inferior social status - fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world + uncomfortable with uncertainty
  • 'Others' (e.g. belong to other ethnic) are responsible for the ills of society + convenient target for authoritarians who obey orders
• Origins of AP

  • Forms in childhood - result from harsh parenting
  • Features - extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards + severe criticism of perceived failings
  • Give conditional love - "I will love you if..." - their love + affection depends on the child's behavior
  • Create hostility + resentment in child - but unable to express feelings directly to parents = fear of punishment
  • Scapegoating = fears are displaced onto other who perceived to be weaker (a psychodynamic explanation)
• Adorno et al's research (1950) - Procedure

  • Procedure = studied more than 2000 middle-class white Americans + their unconscious towards ethnic groups. Developed several measurement scales --> F-scale (potential for fascism) used to measure AP. e.g. Obedience + respect for authority are most important virtues for children to learn.
• Adorno et al Research (1950) - findings

  • Findings = High on F-scale + other measures --> identified with 'strong' people + disliked the 'weak'. Conscious of status (own + others) + had extreme respect, deference + servility to higher status people.
  • They had a cognitive style (way of perceiving others) - fixed + distinctive stereotypes.
  • Strong positive correlation between authoritarian + prejudice