Explanations for Obedience Flashcards
What are the 3 situational explanations for obedience?
1) Proximity
2) Location
3) Uniform
(legitimacy of authority)
1) Proximity
In Milgram’s original study, the teacher and learner were in separate rooms, they were not in close proximity.
1) Proximity to victim
* In order to test the power of proximity, Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room (close proximity).
* In this variation, the % of participants who administered the full 450 volts drooped from 65% to 40%.
* Here obedience levels fall, as the teacher was able to experience the learner’s pain more directly.
* In another variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand directly onto the shock plate (extremely close proximity).
* In this variation, the % dropped even further to 30%
* In these 2 variations, the closer the proximity of the teacher and learner, the lower the level of obedience.
2) Proximity to authority
* In one variation, after the experimenter had given the initial instructions, they left the room (not in close proximity).
* All subsequent instructions were then provided over the phone.
* In this variation, participants were more likely to defy the experimenter and only 21% of the participants administered the full 450 volts.
2) Location
- Milgram conducted his original research in a laboratory of Yale University, which is a prestigious, high status institution.
- In order to test the power of location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, reducing the status of the location.
- The experiment was no longer associated with Yale University and was carried out by the Research Association of Bridgeport.
- In this variation, the % of participant who administered the full 450 volts dropped to 47.5%.
- This highlights the impact of location on obedience, with less credible locations resulting in a reduction in the level of obedience.
3) Uniform
- In most of Milgram’s variations, the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a University Professor.
- Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes, who was another confederate.
- In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the learner made a mistake.
- The % of participants who administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20% demonstrating the power of uniform.
Situational explanations - strength
Legitimacy of authority can help explain cultural differences in obedience. Research indicates that countries differ in obedience levels. For example, only 16% of Australians went to the top of the voltage scale and 85% of German ppts did in replications of Milgram’s research. The research findings reflect how different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures. These research findings add to the validity of the explanation.
Situational explanations - strength
Legitimacy of authority can explain real-life events of obedience. Kelman and Hamilton suggest the My Lai massacre, where US soldiers murdered unarmed civilians, can be explained by the power of hierarchy in the US army. The army has authority recognised by the US Government and the law. Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal. This explanation can therefore explain events of destructive obedience. It is a strength because it means the explanation has practical applications. If legitimacy of authority is a useful explanation of real-life war crimes, then there is a possibility that it could help up to understand how to prevent such crimes in the future. This could be done by helping people, perhaps through education, to challenge legitimate authority rather than obeying it mindlessly.
Situational explanations - strength
There is research support for the influence of uniform on obedience. Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in NYC. The experiment involved 3 confederates dressed in 3 different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. The confederates stood in the street and asked passer’s-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or giving the confederate a coin for a parking meter. The research found that people were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie. This provides support for the influence of uniform on obedience as it displays that people will be more likely to obey a person dressed as a authority figure, than a person wearing regular clothing.
Situational explanations - strength
Milgram’s research is supported by cross-cultural research. Miranda et al (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students, this suggests that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too. This is a strength as there are studies that show that Spanish students are highly obedient which hence increases the population validity of the research.
Situational explanations - weakness
Milgram’s variations lacked internal validity. Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s original study, arguing that the procedure was fake and the participants guessed what was going on and were therefore showing demand characteristics. They argue that this was even more the case with the variations, because the procedure was even more manipulated. In one variation, the experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’ - even Milgram realised that the situation was contrived, as participants worked out the truth. This is a weakness as the study may not give insight on why people obey and therefore the study isn’t measuring what it claims to be measuring.
Situational explanations - weakness
Smith and Bond argue that most replications have taken place in Western cultures, which are not culturally different from the USA. Therefore, it might be premature to conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to everyone, everywhere. This is a weakness as findings cannot be generalised to other regions aside from the west and therefore it lacks population validity.
Situational explanations - weakness
Situation variables offer an excuse for evil behaviour. Milgram’s variations offer support for situational explanations of obedience, but this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998). He argues that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control. Mandel argues that in suggesting situational factors influence obedience, Milgram excuses the behaviour of the Nazis. This is a weakness as it excuses the behaviour of those that committed crimes and questions whether those that committed crime should be punished.
What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?
The authoritarian personality
The authoritarian personality
- Adorno believed that high levels of obedience was due to a psychological disorder and tried to locate the causes of it in the personality of the individual.
- In 1950, he looked into the causes of an obedient personality.
- He used more than 2000, white, middle-class Americans.
- They were given a series of questionnaires/surveys to measure their unconscious attitudes towards obedience and other racial groups.
- One scale they were given was the F-scale which is still used today to measure the authoritarian personality.
- People with high scores on the F-scale and other measures identified with ‘strong’ people and disliked those who were ‘weak’.
- They were very aware of theirs and other’s status, showing immense respect for those in power and of high status.
- They hold highly conventional views on sex, race and gender.
- Believe society is going down-hill. We need strong and powerful leaders to reinforce a return to traditional values, liken love of country, religion and family.
- Very inflexible in their views. They live in a black and white world and therefore hate uncertainty.
- They had a certain cognitive (thinking style) where they had fixed stereotypes about people.
- There was a positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudices. As one went up, the other went up too.
How does someone develop this personality?
- Childhood due to harsh parenting.
- This parenting style is extremely strict, has impossibly high standards, demands loyalty and criticises all failings.
- It is based on conditional love, where the parents only love the child if they behave a certain way.
- This creates resentment and anger in the child and they cannot express their feelings to their parents.
- Therefore they redirect/displace then into people they perceive to be weaker and inferior.
- The central trait of obedience to authority is a dislike for people considered or be socially inferior or belong to other groups.
Dispositional explanations - strength
There is research support. Elms and Milgram (1966) wanted to see if the obedient participants in Milgram’s research were most likely to display authoritarian personality traits in comparison to disobedient participants. Their sample consisted of 20 obedient participants, who administered the full 450 volts and 20 disobedient participants who refused to continue. Each participant completed several personality questionnaires, including Adorno’s F scale, to measure their level of authoritarian personality. In addition, participants were also asked open-ended questions about their relationship with their parents and their relationship with the experimenter and learner, during Milgram’s experiment. Elms and a Milgram found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F scale, in comparison to disobedient participant. Elms and Milgram concluded that the obedient participants in his original research displayed higher levels of authoritarian personality, compared to disobedient participants. This is a strength as it shows that there is a relationship between having an authoritarian personality and being obedient.
