obedience

• obedience


  type of social influence where someone acts in response to direct order - comes from perceived figure of authority - person receiving order made to respond in a way that they wouldn't have done
• Milgram's aim and method 1

  AIM - to test the 'German's are different hypothesis' the theory that Germans are somehow more likely to obey orders to harm others

  METHOD - 40 American male volunteers - Yale University (prestigious setting) to take part in what they thought was a study on the effects of punishment on learning - tested along with a confederate (posing as other participants) - participant = teacher, confederate = learner - participant instructed by authority figure (researcher) to flick switches on electric shock generator for incorrect responses
• Milgram's method 2


  shocks ranged from 15V (labelled slight shock) to 450V (labelled XXX) - if participants refused to continue researcher would give verbal prods of 'you must continue' - Milgram wanted to see how far participants would go in order to obey unreasonable order from authority figure
• Milgram's findings and conclusion

  FINDINGS - during study participants were sweating and stuttered - many argued with researcher but the obedience rate was 65% (went all the way to 450V) - unexpected as before study Milgram asked people to predict how participants would behave and 1 in 1,000 would continue to 450V - all participants went to 300V

  CONCLUSION - Germans aren't different and we are all capable of blind and destructive obedience to unjust orders
• variables affecting obedience - proximity

  physical closeness of authority figure to person they're giving order to - thought being in close proximity to authority figure increases pressure to obey - In Milgram's research when researcher left room and gave orders over the phone obedience rate dropped from 65% to 21%
• variables affecting obedience - location

  place order is issued - relevant factor affecting obedience is status or prestige associated with location - could be argued that high obedience in Milgram's study could be contributed to by prestigious location of study - Milgram's study conducted in prestigious setting of Yale University obedience rate was 65% - participants claimed location gave them confidence in integrity of people involved - Milgram's variation where participants tested in less prestigious setting of run-down office, obedience dropped from 65% to 48%
• variables affecting obedience - uniform 


  people in positions of authority usually have specific outfit to symbolise authority that indicates they expect our obedience - Milgram's variation experimenter called away at start and replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public' (confederate) in every day clothes rather than a lab coat and obedience rate dropped from 65% to 20%
• MILGRAM EVALUATION - high degree of control over variables

  Milgram's study took place in controlled setting of laboratory making it easier to control extraneous variables - Milgram would control answers given by learner and the verbal cues used by researcher - high internal validity
• MILGRAM EVALUATION - easy to replicate

  controlled setting of laboratory easier to repeat research in exactly same way adjusting variables each time to test influence on obedience - Milgram able to keep everything standardised but change variables like proximity and uniform of authority figure - allowed Milgram to test which variables affect obedience the most and gain better understanding
• MILGRAM EVALUATION - lacks ecological validity


  laboratory setting viewed as artificial setting as it doesn't represent real life - people may respond to authority figures differently in real life such as in response to the police - findings may not generalise to real life situations
• MILGRAM EVALUATION - uses deception


  participants deliberately mislead regarding true nature of the study - Milgram led participants to believe electric shocks real when they weren't - participants denied informed consent as they couldn't have known about the true nature of the study until the debrief afterwards - goes against ethical code of conduct - however, he wouldn't have been able to obtain realistic results if he'd not used deception