Obedience

• Obedience


  Individual is expected to follow orders given by a legitimate authority figure
• Disobedience


  Individual doesn't follow an authority figure
• Consequences


  Individual has to accept the consequences of their actions
• Responsibility


  Individuals need to take responsibility for their actions
• Obedience to Autonomy


  Move between obeying authority and being autonomous
• Agentic Shift


  Feeling controlled by authority, giving up individual responsibility
• Milgram's Agency Theory
• Feeling intense discomfort and stress


  When following orders we think are wrong
• Supporting evidence


  • Hofling study - 95% of nurses gave a dose exceeding max ordered by doctor over the phone
  • Shows people will obey authority
• Critical evidence


  • Adorno et al. - Those with authoritarian personality more likely to obey those with higher status
  • Limited explanation
• Milgram's Study of Obedience
• Milgram's Procedure


  1. Recruited 40 males, aged 20-50, varied backgrounds

  2. Paid $4.50

  3. Took place at Yale University

  4. Experimenter wore grey lab coat

  5. Voltage increased by 15V for each wrong answer

  6. Hesitation present, they were encouraged

  7. At the end, participants debriefed
• Results of Milgram's Study
• Conclusions of Milgram's Study
• Milgram's Telephonic Instructions Experiment


  1. Aim to see if physical proximity has an influence on level of obedience

  2. 40 participants, instructions over the phone

  3. Initially giving instructions face to face

  4. Obedience levels dropped to 22% at 450V
• Conclusion of Telephonic Instructions Experiment
• Milgram's Downtown Office Experiment


  1. Aim to see if change of setting affects Obedience levels

  2. 40 males, mailshot (less official)

  3. Same procedure as original

  4. Obedience Levels dropped to 47.5%

  5. Participants questioned credentials or experimenter
• Conclusion of Downtown Office Experiment
• Milgram's Ordinary Man Experiment

  1. Aim to test if obedience changed if an ordinary man gave instructions

  2. Told to shock if answer incorrect

  3. Didn't specify voltage, told increasing by 15V

  4. Ordinary man in ordinary clothes

  5. Obedience levels dropped to 20%
• Conclusion of Ordinary Man Experiment
• Overall Conclusion
• Burger's Replication of Milgram
• Burger's Procedure


  1. Advertisement like Milgram's

  2. 140 applied, underwent selection procedure

  3. More than 2 psych classes, no psychiatric disorders or domestic abuse

  4. 29 males, 41 females randomly assigned to base or model refusal condition

  5. Base condition - told learning and memory may be taped, fixed draw, learner said they had a heart condition, encouraged participants

  6. Model refusal condition - 2 teachers, watched scripted into refusal
• Burger's Results
• Burger's Conclusion
• Social Impact Theory of Behaviour


  Changes that occur in a person due to the influence of others

  Sources - those influencing others

  Targets - those being influenced

  More sources saying the same thing, more likely to influence targets

  Larger, more legitimate, and more immediate sources have greater influence
• Supporting evidence


  • Sherif's Asch study - participants complied more with a uniformed person than an uninformed person

  Legitimacy is important
• Critical evidence


  • Hofling study - 95% of nurses gave an incorrect dosage when ordered to by a doctor over the phone

  Dare need immediacy to obey
• Factors affecting obedience and dissent


  Situational and personality factors
• Situational factors


  • Social impact and agency theory show situational factors can affect obedience

  Burger's model refusal condition - 63% were obedient, shows people follow behavioural norms

  Adorno et al. - Authoritarian personality more likely to obey those of higher status, limited explanation
• Personality factors


  • Authoritarian personality - high obedience due to harsh upbringing, blindly obedient

  Locus of control - those with internal locus take more responsibility, less likely to obey authority, those with external locus give up free will, more likely to obey
• Supporting evidence


  • Adorno et al. - Authoritarian personality more likely to obey those of higher status

  Agency theory is a limited explanation
• Critical evidence


  • Burger's model refusal condition - 63% were obedient, shows people follow behavioural norms
• Gender


  • Gender socialisation - child learns norms of their gender within society

  No real difference between men and women, goes against traditional stereotypes
• Supporting evidence


  • Kilham et al. - Males were 40% obedient, females 16%, shows gender difference in obedience
• Critical evidence


  • Burger - Found very little difference between men and women, gender not a factor
• Culture


  • Individualistic cultures emphasise individuation, less likely to obey

  Collectivist cultures emphasise group well-being and social harmony, more likely to obey

  High power distance index (PDI) - more obedient, low PDI - less likely to obey
• Supporting evidence


  • Hofling et al. - Obedience levels of 28% in Australia, very low PDI, shows culture affects obedience
• Critical evidence


  • Blass (1991) - 35% (Milgram's study) had internal locus, didn't obey as didn't want responsibility of hurting someone, shows personality may be a factor
• A02


  Key Question: How can social psychology explain the conflicts that happen between countries that can lead to war