obedience

• Stanley Milgram wanted to understand why so many German people were willing to support Hitler's plans for slaughter


  1963
• Obedience


  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when someone does not obey.
• Procedure to test obedience

  1. 40 male participants recruited through newspaper adverts, paying $4.50 to take part

  2. Participants between 20-50 years old and jobs ranged from unskilled to professionals

  3. Participants arrived at a lab and were given roles, these roles were rigged as the confederate ('Mr Wallace') always ended up as the 'learner' whilst the genuine participant was the 'teacher, there was also a confederate 'experimenter' dressed in a lab coat

  4. Participants were told they could leave the experiment at any time

  5. Learner was strapped to a chair in another room, teacher was in control of administering a 'shock' to the learner, experimenter was in the same room as the teacher

  6. Each shock went up by 15 volts (slight shock), up to 450v, the shocks were fake but the participants did not know this

  7. If the participant was reluctant to administer the shock the experimenter had 4 prods to order the teacher to continue
• Obedience


  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order
• Person issuing the order

  • Usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when someone does not obey
• Procedure to test obedience

  1. 40 male participants recruited through newspaper adverts, paying $4.50 to take part

  2. Participants between 20-50 years old and jobs ranged from unskilled to professionals

  3. Participants arrived at a lab and were given roles, these roles were rigged as the confederate ('Mr Wallace') always ended up as the 'learner' whilst the genuine participant was the 'teacher, there was also a confederate 'experimenter' dressed in a lab coat

  4. Participants were told they could leave the experiment at any time

  5. Learner was strapped to a chair in another room, teacher was in control of administering a 'shock' to the learner, experimenter was in the same room as the teacher

  6. Each shock went up by 15 volts (slight shock), up to 450v, the shocks were fake but the participants did not know this

  7. If the participant was reluctant to administer the shock the experimenter had 4 prods to order the teacher to continue
• • Prod 1: 'Please continue'
  • Prod 2: 'the experiment requires that you continue'
  • Prod 3: 'it is absolutely essential that you continue'
  • Prod 4: 'you have no other choice you, you must go on'
• Milgram had asked 14 psych students before the experiment to predict how many participants would obey completely, they estimated less than 3%
• All participants were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal
• In a follow up questionnaire, 84% said they were glad to have participated
• Research support


  • French documentary about reality TV, game show, 'The game of death', participants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to an actor, 80% of participants delivered the maximum 460v shock to an apparently unconscious man
  • Hofling et al (1996) - Unknown doctor telephoned 22 nurses and asked them to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list, 95% of nurses 21/22 started to administer the drug, obeying without question
• Criticisms of Milgram's study

  • Low internal validity - May not have been testing what was intended
  • 75% of participants said they believed the shocks were real according to Milgram
  • Other psychologists believed participants didn't really believe the setting and so were 'play-acting' (demand characteristics)
  • Perry's (2013) research confirms this as she listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported they only thoughts the shocks were real half of the time
  • ⅔ of the participants were disobedient - Participants were simply showing demand characteristics to fulfil the aims of the study
• • Sheridan and King (1972) conducted an experiment similar to Milgrams with students administering real shocks to a puppy i response to orders from an experimenter 
  • Despite the animals distress, 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock to the puppy 
  • Supports Milgram's study as people still behaved obediently even when the shocks were real 
• Alternative interpretation of findings

  • Whilst ppts obeyed to the first 3 prods (relating their actions to the importance of the experiment) every ppt given the 4th prod (you have no other choice, you must go on), disobeyed without exception 
  • Social identity theory suggests ppts only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research, but when blindly asked to obey an authority figure they refused 
  • SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings, with Milgram himself suggesting that ‘identifying with the science’ is a reason for obedience
• Ethical issues 

  • Technically Milgram didn’t break any ethical guidelines, as there weren’t any 
  • Milgram used deception (as ppts believed the shocks were real) and evidently caused much psychological distress even if many were not regretful in the debrief 
  • Studies such as this and Zimbardo’s research on conformity to social roles were vital in paving the way to the introduction of ethical guidelines, perhaps making the sacrifice worth it 
• Situational variables


  Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour
• Proximity


  • The physical closeness of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
  • In the baseline study, the teacher couldn't see the learner, but in the proximity variation they were in the same room
  • Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
  • There was a touch proximity variation where the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an 'electroshock plate' if he refused to place it there himself after a wrong answer
  • Obedience in this variation dropped to 30%
  • In the remote instruction variation , experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone
  • Obedience dropped to 20.5% and frequently pretended to give shocks
  • Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
• Location


  • The place where an order is issued, the relevant factor of location that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with it
  • Milgram's location variation involved running the experiment in a run down office block rather than the prestigious Yale university
  • Obedience fell to 47.5%
  • The prestigious setting gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority, the location reflected the authority of the experimenter so obedience was higher
  • Obedience was still relatively high as ppts perceived the experiments 'scientific nature'
• Uniform


  • People in a position of authority usually have a specific uniform that symbolises their authority (e.g police officers), indicating they're entitled to expect our obedience
  • In the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat (symbolic of a uniform)
  • In the variation the experimenter was called away and his place was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public', wearing normal clothes rather than a lab coat
  • The obedience rate dropped to 20%, lowest of all of the variations
  • Uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised as a symbol of authority, when someone does not have a uniform there is no legitimacy of authority and so they have less right to expect our obedience
• Bickman (1974) field experiment in NYC showed people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard rather than the one in the suit and tie, supporting the idea that a situational variable does have an effect on obedience
• Research showed Dutch participants also showed similar levels of obedience, especially when situational variables (like proximity) were changed, showing the findings are not limited to Americans or men
• Smith and Bond identified only two replications in India and Jordan where cultures are significantly different to America, the rest were conducted in culturally similar countries (Australia, spain, scotland), so Milgram's findings, inc on variables, may not be appropriate to apply to all cultures
• Participants may have been aware the procedure was fake, especially in variations like the one where the experimenter was switched out with a 'member of the public', which Milgram recognised was so contrived that participants could have figured out it was fake, reducing the internal validity of the results
• Agentic state


  A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, freeing ourselves from the demands of our conscience
• Milgram's research was based on Adolf Eichmann (in charge of Nazi death camps) who had claimed his actions were simply 'following orders'
• People in agentic state


  • Believe they are an agent acting for someone else
  • Feel high anxiety when they realise what they're doing is wrong but they feel powerless to disobey
• Autonomous state


  Opposite of an agentic state, the person feels free to behave according to their own principles and feel responsible for their actions
• Agentic shift


  The shift from autonomy to agency, Milgram suggested that this occurs when someone perceives someone else as an authority figure
• Authority figure


  • Higher up in the social hierarchy and so are perceived to have greater power
• Milgram observed many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so
• Binding factors


  Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
• Legitimacy of authority


  An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
• Some people are granted the power to punish others
• The problems arise with destructive authority
• Some participants asked questions such as "who is responsible if mr wallace is harmed", to which the experimenter would answer "I'm responsible", the participant often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections
• Once the participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their behaviour, they acted with ease as the experimenters agent
• The 1977 study found 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to overdose a patient
• The doctor was an obvious authority figure but all the nurses remained autonomous
• Only 16% of australian women went all the way up to 450v in a Milgram-style study, whereas in germany this was 85%
• Legitimacy can not explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy of clear and accepted legitimacy of authority (nurse study)