factors affecting obedience and dissent

• proximity - AO1: The presence of an authority figure affects the likelihood of obedience occurring. The presence of a legitimate authority has a stronger effect when the authority figure is present as their authority is visible ie uniform
• proximity - evidence: Milgram variation – telephonic instructions (experiment 7) After giving the first instructions, the experimenter leaves the rooms and communicates with the participant through a phone. Level of obedience dropped to 22.5%.
• proximity - AO3: Also supported by Social Impact theory . . . However, in the Hofling study where nurses were given instructions with low proximity (over the phone), 21/22 nurses obeyed.
• legitimate authority - AO1: The perceived status of an authority figure has an effect on obedience. This depends on the situation in which the instructions are given and therefore if an individual has authority within a particular situation they are more likely to have their instructions to obey followed eg . . .
• legitimate authority - evidence: Milgram variation – ordinary man (experiment 13) A confederate who is not dressed in a lab coat gives instructions to the participant after the experimenter leaves the room obedience fell to 20%
• legitimate authority - AO3: Further research supports this - Sedikides and Jackson’s zoo study found when the experimenter wore a zoo keeper's uniform, complete with an official patch on the shirt, participants would follow their instructions more than when he wore a T-shirt, shorts, and sandals.
• gender - AO1: Moral reasoning theory Carol Gilligan (1982) “moral reasoning theory” suggests that moral decision making is guided by differing principles in men and women. “ethic of justice” is more common in men, valuing equality and fairness. Whilst women use “ethic of care” valuing interpersonal connections and supporting those in need.
• gender - evidence: Gilligan and Attanucci (1988) Male and female participants were interviewed about real-life moral dilemmas and, although most participants used both the ethic of justice and ethic of care (middle column) in their moral reasoning, overall men chose a justice orientation and women chose the care orientation more. Therefore, gender differences…
• gender - AO3: Burger (2009) found . . .
• personality locus of control - AO1: Rotter (1966) proposed that people either have: - Internal locus of control- where individuals are responsible for their own actions + are less influenced by others. - External locus of control- individuals believe their behaviour is beyond their control, they take less responsibility for their actions + more likely to be influenced by others. Therefore those with an internal locus of control are able to resist obedience because they believe they are in control.
• personality locus of control - evidence: Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders from the Nazi’s and those who had not. They found that the 406 ‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control, compared to the 126 people who had followed orders. Therefore . . .
• personality locus of control - AO3: Schurz (1985) in a task similar to Milgram’s original study, Austrian participants were instructed to give painful doses of ultrasound to a female student. There were no differences in scores for Locus of Control between participants who were fully obedient and those who resisted This suggests that personality…
• personality authoritarian personality - AO1: Adorno (1950) explained that high levels of obedience relates to authoritarian personality. - Adorno believed that a harsh style of parenting leads children to develop personality traits such as toughness, destructiveness, which he termed ‘Authoritarian’. - An authoritarian personality is typically submissive to authority but harsh to those seen as subordinate to themselves.
• authoritarian personality - evidence: Elms and Milgram (1966) used the F-scale with participants from Milgram’s studies, testing 20 fully obedience participants and 20 who were not. Obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale. This suggests . . .
• authoritarian personality - AO3: Other factors eg obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education. Cannot claim that there is a casual relationship between childhood experiences, authoritarianism and obedience, these are purely correlations.
• culture - AO1: Individualistic cultures - Value personal autonomy and self-reliance eg USA / UK = more obedient, as obligation and sense of duty may override the desire to rebel. Collectivist cultures - Value loyalty to the group, interdependence and cooperation eg China, Brazil = less obedient, as value is placed on independence and self-determination.
• culture - evidence: Kilham and Mann (1974) found Australia scored very low for power distance (36%), and Blass (2012) found their obedience rates were under 30%. Dolinski et al (2017) found very high level of obedience (90%) in Poland and they had a much higher power distance score of 68%. Therefore, perhaps Hofstede’s power distance dimension is useful in predicting obedience.
• culture - AO3: Blass (2012) calculated the average obedience rates of Milgram replications from around the world. He found an average of 66% obedience across other countries, compared with 61% for the US replications. (some variation, with individualistic cultures scoring lower, but very similar averages). Therefore, we can conclude that perhaps obedience is in fact…