Obedience

• Milgram's baseline procedure:

  • The participant was the teacher, the confederate was the learner.
  • The learner had to remember words and each time they got it wrong the teacher has to administer an electric shock.
  • The shocks went up in voltage and at 300 volts the learner 'pounded on the wall' and didn't answer the next question.
  • If the teacher refused then the experimenter had to prod them to continue.
• Milgram's baseline findings:

  • Every participant delivered shocks up to 300v
  • 65% continued to 450v
  • Also collected qualitative data such as observations
  • Many participants showed tension
• Previous data (Milgram):

  • Beforehand psychology students estimated only 3% would reach 450v
  • All participants were debriefed after
• Conclusions Milgram's baseline study:

  • German people are not different, Americans also obeyed orders.
  • Suspected certain factors also affected obedience.
• Evaluation: Milgram's baseline study (strength)-

  Research support: His finding were replicated in a French documentary focusing on the participants giving shocks to others in front of an audience. Their behaviour was almost identical to Milgram's participants.
• Evaluation: Milgram's baseline study (limitation)-

  Low internal validity: His study may not have been testing what it wanted to test, only 75% believed the shocks were genuine. The rest may have been responding to demand characteristics.

  Counterpoint: Sheridan and king made participants give a real shock to puppy and 100% of women and 54% of men did it. Showing that the study was genuine.
• Evaluation: Milgram's baseline study (limitation)-

  Alternative interpretation of findings: Blind obedience may not be justified. Every participant given the forth prod without exception disobeyed. They only obeyed when they identified with the scientific if aims of the study. When told to blindly obey they refused.
• Situational variables: Proximity, Location and Uniform.
• Proximity: In the proximity version the learner and teacher were in the same room, obedience rate dropped to 40%. In touch proximity version the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electric shock plate if they refused, obedience dropped to 30%. In remote instruction version the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by phone, obedience reduced to 20.5%.
• Proximity explanation: Decreased proximity allows for people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. When they were apart the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing.
• Location: Milgram conducted the study in a run down office block rather than Yale, obedience fell to 47.5%.
• Location explanation: Yale gave the study legitimacy, so participants were more obedient. It was still high in the office because participants perceived the scientific nature of the study however.
• Uniform: In the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat, in one variation the experimenter was called away and a 'member of the public' came in in ordinary clothes. Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of all.
• Uniform explanation: Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognized symbols of authority. People in uniforms expect obedience because their authority is legitimate.
• Evaluation: situational variables (strength)-

  Research support: Other studies have demonstrated influence of situational variables. Bickman had three confederates in different outfits each asking people to perform certain tasks, people were twice as likely to obey the security guard vs the one in a jacket and tie. Supports ides that variables have powerful effects on obedience.
• Evaluation: situational variables (strength)-

  Cross-cultural replications: Findings have been replicated in other cultures, Dutch participants had to say stressful things in an interview desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. His findings weren't just limited to men or Americans.

  Counterpoint: Replications of his research weren't very cross-cultural. Only two replications took place in India and Jorden which were the only countries which are quite different in culture, therefore it may apply to many countries but not cultures.
• Evaluation: situational variables (limitation)-

  Low internal validity: Participants may be aware that it is fake, the situation could seem very fake to the participants so its unclear whether the findings are due to obedience or demand characteristics.
• 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, this frees us from the demands of our consciousness and allows us to be destructive.
• Autonomous state: A mental state where the person is free to behave according to their own beliefs and feel responsibility for their actions.
• Agentic shift: Shift from autonomous state to the agentic state.
• Binding factors: When a person feels they are powerless to stop obeying authority. Aspects that allow them to ignore the effect of their behaviour and reduce moral strain.
• Legitimacy of authority: An explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
• Destructive authority: When people of power begin to use their power for destruction people begin to behave in cruel and dangerous ways.
• Evaluation: agentic state (strength)

  Research support: Milgram's own studies support the role of the agentic state, most participants resisted giving shocks and often asked who was responsible . This shows that if they don't feel responsible they will continue with the destructive actions.
• Evaluation: agentic state (limitation)-

  A limited explanation: Agentic state doesn't explain many research findings about obedience. Rank and Jacobson found that 16 out of 18 nurses refused to administer a lethal drug dose to a patient if a doctor ordered it. The agentic state can only account for some of the situations.
• Evaluation: Legitimacy of authority (strength)-

  Explains cultural differences: Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient. In some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate, reflects the ways in which societies are structured.
• Evaluation: Legitimacy of authority (limitation)-

  Cannot explain all obedience: Cannot explain all instances of when authority is clear and accepted. Could just be that some people are more obedient than others.
• Dispositional explanation: Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individuals beliefs, attitudes and values.
• Authoritarian personality: A type of personality that Adorno argued showed a tendency to obey others, and be submissive to people of higher authority but dismissive to those of lower authority.
• Characteristics of authoritarian personality:

  • Extreme respect for those with authority.
  • View society as weaker as it once was.
  • Show contempt for those with an inferior social status.
  • Believe everything is either right or wrong.
• Origins of authoritarian personality:

  Adorno et al believed that it was formed in childhood as a result of harsh parenting. The child's fears are placed onto people with an 'inferior ' position in society (psychodynamic explanation).
• Adorno et al research:

  Procedure- Studied 2000 Americans unconscious attitude, used the F-scale to measure the personality

  Findings- People who scored high on the F-scale showed extreme respect for those with more power than themselves. They also had distinctive ways of thinking for certain groups.
• Evaluation: Authoritarian personality (strength)-

  Research support: Elms and Milgram interviewed people who had taken part in the original obedience study and found that they scored higher on the F-scale the more obedient they were in that original study.

  Counterpoint: When researchers analysed the individual sub scales they found that the obedient participants lacked some characteristics of those who had authoritarian personalities. The link may be more complex.
• Evaluation: Authoritarian personality (limitation)-

  Limited explanation: It cannot explain obedient behaviour in most of a countries population. In Germany millions showed obedience yet they don't all have authoritarian personalities. Therefore the theory is limited.
• Evaluation: Authoritarian personality (limitation)-

  Political bias: The F-scale only measures tendency towards right wing politics, it doesn't account for obedience along the whole political spectrum.