Milgram: Obedience Flashcards
(14 cards)
Milgram’s background
-Milgram (1960s) wanted to know why ordinary Germans followed the orders of Nazis during the holocaust. He suggested that the tendency to obey authority figures was a universal behaviour, and that in the right situation, most people will show a high level of obedience
Milgram (1963) experiment process
-Milgram (1963) advertised his obedience experiment as a memory study, to prevent the results being influenced by demand characteristics. The participants were 40 males
-The participant was greeted by who they thought were a scientist (dressed in a lab coat) and another participant. However, these two were both confederates
-Both participants were assigned the role of “learner” or “ teacher”, with the process fixed so that the real participant was always assigned the role of “teacher”; the real participant then watched as the “learner” (confederate) was strapped to a chair and connected to electrodes
-The real participant was then led to another room containing a device with switches labelled from 15v to 450v, with descriptions ranging from “ slight shock”, to “ danger, severe shock” and finally “XXX”. The participants (teachers) were given the task of asking the “learner” questions and shocking them for each incorrect answer, escalating the voltage by 15v after every mistake
-As the (fake) shocks increased, the participant could hear the reaction of the learner in the other room after the shock was administered, with silence after 300v was administered, indicating severe harm or death
-If the participant asked who was responsible for the experiment, the scientist would say that he (the scientist) is responsible
-If the participant refused to continue, the scientist would encourage continuation by providing the participant with a series of four prompts: “you must continue”, “ the experiment requires you to continue”, “ it is essential that you continue”, and finally “you have no other choice; you must go on”
-If the participant still did not continue the shocks then the experiment was over
Milgram’s findings and what do they suggest
-Milgram found that 100% of participants shocked to at least 300 volts, and 65% of participants continued all the way up to the full voltage of 450v
-These results suggest that the majority of people will follow the orders of an authority figure, even if these orders will lead to harm
Explanations for Obedience : Agentic state+ agentic shift +autonomous state
-The agentic state is a mental state in which an individual believes that they are acting as an agent of (on behalf of) an authority figure
-In the agentic state, an individual feels no responsibility or guilt for their actions, as they feel like the responsibility for their actions lies with the authority figure
-The autonomous state is when an individual acts according to their own principles and feels responsibility for their actions
-An agentic shift is the movement from the autonomous state to the agentic state in the presence of an authority figure
Legitimacy of authority
-Legitimacy of authority: people learn their position within the social hierarchy through socialisation, they also understand their position relative to people who might be above or below them
-Legitimacy of authority can be communicated through the use of visible symbols such as uniforms
-Settings such as police stations and courts can also communicate legitimacy of authority
Proximity variation
-Milgram increased the distance between the participant and the authority figure by getting the authority figure to provide orders to the participant over the phone
-In this condition; obedience dropped to 21%
-Milgram suggests that because of the distance of the participant from the authority figure, the participant is less likely to remain in the agentic state and is more likely to return to the autonomous state
Location variation
-Milgram’s original study took place in Yale university, a replication was conducted in a run down office block and the obedience rate dropped to 47.5%
-This is because the high status of Yale increased the scientist’s legitimacy of authority, and the low status office block reduced the legitimacy of authority and therefore the obedience levels
Uniform variation
-In Milgrams original experiment, the authority figure wore a lab coat, however, in a variation, the experimenter in the lab coat would recieve a call and make an excuse to leave
-Thye would then be replaced by a new experimenter wearing regular clothes
-This new experimenter had reduced legitimacy of authority, which was show by the reduction in obedience to 20%
Evaluation (Milgram’s variations) negative + positive (However, mundane realism, ecological validity, Orne and Holland demand characteristics, gender bias (explanations of obedience and Milgram’s experiment)
-Milgram argues that individuals act with extreme obedience when they are in an agentic state; when questioned the experimenter accepts responsibility for harm to the participant. Additionally, the scientist, indicated by his lab coat, has a very high legitimacy of authority in Yale University. The manipulation of these variables provide support for Milgrams theories e.g proximity, location and uniform variations
-However, Milgram’s experiment has been criticised for multiple methodological flaws. For example the tasks lacked mundane realism; the shock generator is not a task that would be performed in everyday life. Additionally the study lacked ecological validity, as the controlled setting of Yale University was not normal for participants. We tend to obey in settings and with tasks that are familiar to us
-Orne and Holland suggested that the tasks were so unrealistic that the participants realised that they were no actually administering real shocks, and displayed demand characteristics, changing their behaviour in a way that they thought would match Milgram’s expectations
-The study has also been criticised for gender bias, as an all male sample was used, suggesting that these results may not be generalisable to women
Negative evaluation (35% resistance explained by Adorno) (explanations of obedience)
-In Milgram’s original experiment there was a significant amount of people that resisted the authority figure (35%)
-This level of resistance cannot be explained by situational factors of agentic state and legitimacy of authority as all participants recieved exactly the same experience
-Adornon’s dispositional “Authoritarian personality” theory acknowledges that the willingness to obey varies from person to person, explaining the extreme variation in Milgram’s experiment
Positive evaluation of Milgram’s EXPERIMENT
-Milgram’s use of standardised procedures such as the four prompts given by the scientist to encourage continuation, gave the experiment a high level of control
-This use of standardised procedures enabled replications of the study by Milgram and other researchers
-The results of Milgram’s experiment have been show by Blass (2012) to be reliable across 8 additional countries and across time periods
Negative evaluation (ethical issues) + positive evaluation (may be worth it from cost-benefit perspective)
-Milgram’s research methods are considered highly unethical; participants experienced emotional harm during the experiment, it was difficult for them to withdraw, the participant was decieved about what type of study they were taking part and in were therefore unable to give informed consent
-However, it can be argued that the influence that Milgram’s findings have had on our understanding of obedience, may justify the unethical research methods used in the experiment, from a cost-benefit perspective
Positive research evaluation for Milgram’s legitimacy of authority theory (Hofling 1966)
-Hoffman (1966) conducted a field study in which 22 female nurses recieved a phone call from someone claiming to be a Dr Smith; This Dr Smith would instruct the nurses over the phone to administer twice the daily does of an unknown drug (a clearly harmful amount) to a patient
-It was found that 21 out 22 nurses completed this request, suggesting that even in situations with high ecological validity and mundane realism, individuals will still have a high level of obedience to people they believe have a high legitimacy of authority
Positive research for visible symbols (e.g uniform) communicating legitimacy of authority Bickman (1974)
-Bickman conducted a field study in the ecologically valid streets of New York
-An experimenter wearing either a guard uniform, milkman uniform, or no uniform would go up to random passers-by and ask them to complete a task. When asking them to pay for a parking meter, when wearing the guard uniform, 89% complied with the demands, compared to just 33% without uniform
-These results support Milgram’s theory that visible symbols such as uniform in this case, communicates legitimacy of authority, and people are more likely to obedient to people they believe have a high legitimacy of authority
