Obedience

• what is obedience


  A type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person, often with more power or authority, to avoid consequences or because we trust them
• what was the aim of Milgram's study


  To see how American males would obey directions in a situation where it may cause harm

  (influenced by Nazi Germans obeying orders in the halocaust)
• what were the general processes of the study (participants/what they were told)

  - 40 American male participants, aged 20-50

  - volunteer sampling - offered $4.50 and paid immediately

  - rigged selection: participant = teacher, confederate = learner

  - p's told it was a study into memory
• outline the setup for the study

  - teacher had to shock the learner whenever they answered a question on the memory test incorrectly

  - shock level began at 15volts and increased through 30 levels up to 450volts - fatal shock level

  
• what did the 'learner' do after 300v

  at 315v the learner pounded the walls and begged to be let out, after 315v the learner remained silent
• what did the experimenter instruct the 'teacher' to do after 315v

  an absence of an answer is equivalent to an incorrect answer, give the shock if they don't answer
• what were the main findings of the study

  - no participants stopped below 300volts (severe shock level)

  - 5 p's stopped at 300v = 12.5%

  - 65% continued to highest level of 450v
• what type of data was produced

  qualitative data: observations include sweat, trembling, extreme tension, 3 p's had full panic attacks
• what did the study conclude about obedience

  Germans and Americans aren't different - ordinary Americans were extremely obedient to authority even when asked to behave in an inhumane way
• what did Milgram believe made people obedient


  Milgram argued it's the situation rather than the their personality that makes people obedient, the situation he put people in made it difficult to disobey authority
• evaluation - what is the validity of his study

  - low ecological validity, in a lab setting so doesn't apply to real life

  - low population validity, only males were used so can't generalise to females

  - internal validity, could be issues with demand characteristics as people may realise the study was a setup so continued to the end because they thought they should
• how did Milgram counteract the issues with validity

  - ecological: Milgram argued the setting was real by the authority he created, so it would generalise to real life

  - population: he was comparing obedience with soldiers in the holocaust, who were male. Furthermore the sample of males were varied in age, education, job etc and he did later do a study with females that showed the same findings

  - internal: the signs of distress imply they believed it to be real, only 1 p said they knew it was a setup and 25% said they had doubts
• what are the applications of Milgram's study

  + the results can be used to educate into the harm of obeying certain orders (co-pilots of a plane)

  However, the study is socially sensitive as it provides an 'obedience alibi' for soldiers to argue it wasn't their fault, this can be upsetting for victims of the holocaust
• what ethical issues are there with Milgram's study

  - protection from harm

  - deception

  - right to withdraw

  - informed consent
• why is protection from harm an ethical issue in this study

  the participants experienced extreme distress and the traumatising experience of believing they killed someone
• what was Milgram's counterargument for protection from harm

  the findings lead to practical applications to educate about the risks of blind obedience AND participants were given a full debrief afterwards with only 1 person saying they regretted taking part
• why is deception an ethical issue in this study

  p's weren't told the true aim of the study as they believed it was a memory and punishment test, instead of an obedience test and the shocks being given weren't real
• what was Milgram's counterargument for deception


  if they had been told the true aim it would've prevented any findings as DC would have occurred, so deception was necessary to protect internal validity
• why is the right to withdraw an ethical issue in this study

  the p's didn't feel able to leave the experiment and when they objected the experimenter used prods, such as "the experiment requires that you continue" or "you must go on"
• what was Milgram's counterargument for right to withdraw

  before the experiment began they were told they had the right to leave and were given money immediately (so that won't be a factor involved with p's staying) also after 4 prods the experimenter would stop telling them to stay
• why is informed consent an ethical issue in this study

  p's were unable to give true consent as they didn't know the true aim and weren't given an overview of what the experiment would involve
• what was Milgram's counterargument for informed consent

  they had volunteered through newspaper adverts, so had the choice whether or not to be involved in an experiment, it was only the purpose they didn't consent to
• outline 2 alternative studies into obedience

  Hofling (1966): nurse obedience in real life situation

  Burger (2010): modern replication of Milgram's study
• what was the aim of Hofling's study into obedience?


  To see whether nurses would obey orders from a doctor that could cause harm, in a field experiment
• what were the procedures of this study

  nurses were instructed over the phone by an unfamiliar doctor to give a patient double the recommended dosage of a drug (Astrogen)
• what were the findings and conclusion of the study

  21/22 nurses obeyed the order, despite a control of nurses saying they never would

  Hofling argued this shows authority in a real life study and that people act differently to how they predict they would
• what are the strengths of this study

  + no demand characteristics - they didn't know it was for research, so high internal validity/accuracy of behaviour

  + high ecological validity - results can be generalised to real life nurse obedience
• what is a weakness of the study

  - nurses were told they couldn't confer with other nurses, in a follow up study were they could confer only 2/18 obeyed therefore the findings can't be generalised as nurses in real life can confer
• how does the nurse study add to Milgram's

  shows that Milgram's may not lack ecological validity as high rates of obedience were found in a real life situation, so results can be applied to real life
• what was the aim of Burger's study

  To see if people would still obey authority in a replication of the Milgram paradigm
• what did this study involve

  followed Milgram's procedure with some alterations: maximum shock = 150v, told 3 times they can withdraw at any time, experimenter was trained to spot excessive stress
• what were the findings of this study

  obedience rate to 150v was 70% with no difference between males and females - all 70% said they would continue to higher voltages
• what conclusions can be made about the findings

  it's possible to use the Milgram paradigm in modern times and shows people are still obedient 50years later
• what are the strength and weakness of this study

  + temporal validity - supports Milgram, obedience still occurs in modern times

  - procedures highlight it's difficult to study destructive obedience whilst adhering to modern ethical guidelines
• what other variations of his study did Milgram explore

  1. learner and teacher were in the same room, the teacher could see them being shocked

  2. teacher had to physically force the learners hand to be shocked when they refused to do it voluntarily

  3. the experimenter would leave early on and be replaced by someone in ordinary clothes

  4. experimenter was in a different room and gave instructions over the phone

  5. took place in a run down office building instead of Yale University

  6. women were tested with same procedures
• how did the variations effect obedience

  rate of obedience decreased with all variations, with as much as a 47.5% decrease that went to 450v

  expect from the gender variation, where women showed the same rates as the men
• what do the variations show for Milgram's original conclusion

  confirmed his view: the situation that someone is in is an important factor for obedience, altering the situation altered the level of obedience
• evaluation - what strengths are there for the research into situational factors affecting obedience

  + cross cultural support:

  replicated in other cultures where findings are similar to Milgram's, findings across cultures and can be applied to females

  HOWEVER most replications occurred in Western, developed societies that aren't very culturally different from the US

  + lot of control:

  systematically altered 1 variable at a time to see the effect of individual factors, his study was replicated many times with more than 1000p's in total - shows reliability

  + other supporting research:

  such as uniform increasing obedience, Bickman's field experiment found people to be 2x more likely to obey when confederate was dressed as a security guard, then a jacket and tie compared to regular clothes
• evaluation - what weakness is there for the research into situational factors affecting obedience

  - provides an 'obedience alibi':

  offered an excuse for evil behaviour and offensive to survivors of the holocaust, makes Nazi's victims of situational factors

  HOWEVER Milgram was Jewish so he didn't intend for his research to provide this alibi
• what are the 2 explanations for obedience

  1. Agentic state

  2. Legitimacy of Authority