obedience

• obedience - 


  form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order - person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming
• milgram(1963) baseline procedure -

  • 40 American men - volunteered to take part in study supposedly on memory
  • drew lots to decide who would be teacher or learner - draw fixed so participant always teacher
  • authority figure (experimenter) ordered participant (teacher) to give an increasingly strong shock to learner, located in different room (in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts)
  • shocks were fake but participant didn't know this
• milgrams baseline findings -

  • all participants delivered shocks up to 300 volts
  • 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts ('intense shock')
  • 65% continued to highest level of 450 volts - fully obedient
  • qualitative data - observations: participants showed extreme tension, sweat, tremble, stutter, bite lips, groan) - 3 had uncontrollable seizures
• milgram: other data -

  • before experiment asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants behaviour - estimated 3% would continue to 450 volts
  • findings were unexpected - students under estimate how obedient people actually are
  • all participants in baseline study were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal
  • also sent follow-up questionnaire - 84% said they're glad to have participated
• milgrams's aims - 


  why such a high proportion of Germans obeyed Hitlers commands

  though germans may be more obedient than other countries

  determined procedure to assess how obedient people are
• milgrams conclusions -

  • concluded German people are not different
  • american participants were willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person
  • suspected there are certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience
• evaluation of milgrams baseline study: (strength) research support -

  • P: findings replicated in a French documentary made about reality TV
  • E: documentary (Beauvoir et al 2012) - focused on game show - participants believed they were paid to give electric shocks (actually fake) ordered by the presenter to the other participants (actors) - 80% delivered maximum shock (460 volts)
  • E: behaviour almost identical to milgram - nervous laughter, nail biting
  • L: supports milgrams og findings - weren't just due to special circumstances
• evaluation of milgrams baseline study: (limitation) low internal validity -

  • P: milgrams procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test
  • E: milgram reported 75% of participants believed shocks were genuine
  • E: orne and Holland(1968) argued participants didn't believe in set up and were 'play-acting' - Perry(2013) listened to tapes of milgrams participants and reported only half believed shocks were real (2/3 of these were disobedient)
  • L: suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics
• evaluation of milgrams baseline study: (strength) replicated findings -

  • P: Sheridan and king(1972) conducted study using procedure like milgram
  • E: participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter
  • E: despite real distress of the animal -54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock
  • L: suggests the effects in milgrams study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when shocks were real
• evaluation of milgrams baseline study: (limitation) alternative interpretation of findings -

  • P: milgrams conclusions of blind obedience may not be justified
  • E: haslam et al(2014) showed milgrams participants obeyed when experimenter delivered first 3 verbal prods however 4th prod (you have no choice you must go on) every participant without exception disobeyed
  • E: social identity theory (SIT) participants only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims of research - when ordered to blindly obey they refused
  • L: shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation
• situational variables - 


  features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour

  alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality
• milgrams variations: proximity procedure -

  • teacher and learning in same room
  • obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
  • touch proximity variation - teacher had to force learners hand onto 'electroshock plate' if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer - obedience dropped to 30%
  • remote touch variation - experimenter left room and gave instructions to teacher via phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%
  • participants frequently pretended to give shocks
• milgrams variations: proximity explanation -

  • decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions
  • eg when teacher and learner were physically separated, teacher less aware of harm they were causing to another person so they were more obedient
• milgrams variations: location -

  • procedure: conducted in run down office block rather than at prestigious Yale University - obedience fell to 47.5%
  • explanation: prestigious university environment gave study legitimacy and authority - more obedient as they perceived the experimenter shared this legitimacy and obedience was expected - however obedience still quite high as participants perceived 'scientific' nature of procedure
• milgrams variations: uniforms -

  • procedure: in baseline study experimenter wore grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority - in this variation experimenter called away due to a phone call at start of the procedure and role was taken over by an 'ordinary person' (confederate) in every day clothes rather than a lab coat - obedience dropped to 20%
  • explanation: uniforms encourage obedience because they're widely recognised as symbols of authority - we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate
• evaluation of milgrams variables: (strength) research support -

  • P: other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience
  • E: bickman(1974) field experiment - had 3 confederates dress in different outfits (jacket and ties, milkman's outfit and security guard) confederates individually stood in street and asked passers-by to perform tasks (eg picking up litter)
  • E: people twice as likely to obey assistant dressed as security guard than one dressed in a jacket and tie
  • L: supports view that a situational variable (uniform) does have powerful effect on obedience
• evaluation of milgrams variables: (strength) cross-cultural replications -

  • P: findings have been replicated in other cultures
  • E: Meeus and raaijmakers(1986) studied dutch participants - ordered to say stressful things in an interview to (a confederate) desperate for a job -90% obeyed
  • E: also replicated milgrams findings of proximity - when person giving orders was not present obedience decreased dramatically
  • L: suggests milgrams findings are not limited to Americans or men but are valid across cultures and apply to women too
• evaluation of milgrams variables: (limitation) not cross-cultural -

  • P: replications of research not very cross-cultural
  • E: smith and bond(1998) identified just 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 in India and Jordan - culturally quite different from US
  • E: other countries involved (Spain, Australia, Scotland) are culturally similar
  • L: may not be appropriate to conclude that milgrams findings (including variations) apply to people in all or most cultures
• evaluation of milgrams variations: (limitation) low internal validity -

  • P: participants may have been aware the procedure was faked
  • E: orne and holland(1968) point out that it is even more likely in variations because of the extra manipulation of variables
  • E: eg variation where experimenter is replaced by 'member of public' - even milgram recognised that situation was so contrived that some participants may have worked out truth
  • L: therefore unclear whether findings are genuinely due to operation of obedience or because participants saw through deception and 'play acted'
• agentic state -

  • mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we believe we're acting for an authority figure (as their agent) - frees us from demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure
  • Adolf eichmann (1961) - in charge of nazi death camps - defence was he was obeying orders - milgram then proposed obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn't take responsibility - acting as an agent
  • agent experiences high anxiety when they realise what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey
• autonomous state -

  • autonomous state = free to behave according to own principles and feels responsibility for own actions
  • agentic shift = shift from autonomy to agency
  • milgram(1974) this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure - figure has greater power as they have a higher position in a social hierarchy
  • when one person is in charge of others in social groups, others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency
• binding factors -

  • 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 and thus reduce their moral strain
  • strategies the individual uses - shifting responsibility to victim or denying damage to volunteer