Obedience Flashcards
revision
Milgram procedure
- 40 male PPs
- Teacher, learner, experimenter in room
- Machine with 15 to 450 volts (15 lvls)
- PP was always teacher
- Hesitant PPs were given prods to continue the experiment - as seen below:
“Please continue”
“The experiment requires that you continue”
“It is essential you continue”
“You have no choice you must go on”
Milgram findings and conclusions
- None stopped below 300V, 12.5% stopped after this
- 65% went to the highest shock level
conclusion: ordinary people are willing to obey a legitimate authority figure, to the extent to which they will hurt an innocent person.
Milgram variations + variations eval
Location - run down office blocks vs Yale University. In the less prestigious setting from 65% to 47.5%
Proximity - the learner now in the same room 65% to 40%. Forcing hand on plate = 20.5%
Uniform lab coat vs casual clothing. 65% to 20%
Eval
For uniform there is strong research support as the lab coat suggests legitimate authority studies show we obey more to people who seems to have more power than us.
Low internal validity - uniform variable and a member from the public PPs saw through the deception and there were demand characteristics, therefore cannot explain obedience in the real world.
Strength of Milgram research
- Strong research support for Milgram’s findings. In a fake French TV pilot programme, 80% delivered the fatal shock to other PPs.
Weakness of Milgram research
- Low internal validity - researchers state people only obeyed because they didn’t think the shocks were real
HOWEVER, Kings research found 54% males and 100% females delivered a fatal shock to a puppy.
Milgram said 70% believed it was real meaning his study was highly accurate.
Situation variables meaning
features of the immediate physical and social environment that may influence a persons behaviour,
The situational variables in Milgram’s study
Proximity, location and uniform
Proximity
In the baseline study the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
In the touch proximity variation the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate if they refused to answer questions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
In the remote instruction variation the experimenter left the room and gave instructions via the telephone. Obedience further dropped to 20% and the teacher often pretended to give shocks.
Explanation to proximity
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequence of their actions. For example when the teacher and learner were separated they are less aware of the harm they are causing.
Location
Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block in comparison to the prestigious Yale University, in this location obedience fell to 47.5%
Explanation to location
The more prestigious setting gives the experiment more legitimacy and authority. Participants in this variation were more obedient as they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and authority and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still high in the other variation as the participants perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the experiment.
Uniform
In the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In another variation, the experimenter was called away and replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience rate fell to 20%
Evaluation - research support
Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in three different outfits - a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guards outfit. The confederates individually stood on the street and asked passers by to perform tasks like picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the one in a security guards outfit other than the one in a jacket and tie.
This supports the view that uniform has an impact on obedience.
Evaluation - low internal validity
One limitation criticised in Milgram’s research is the reliability of it and how participants may have been aware it was faked. For example even said by Milgram the variation where the experimenter is swapped by a ‘member of the public’ he recognised this situation was so contrived that some may have worked out the truth. So, it is unclear whether the findings are genuine or down to demand characteristics.
Situational explanations - agentic state
Milgram’s initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes. He had been in charge of Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was just obeying orders. This led Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility, Instead they believe they are acting for someone else i.e. that they are an ‘agent’, this is someone that acts for or in place of another. An agent is not an unfeeling puppet - they experience high anxiety as they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
Agentic state meaning
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
Autonomous state
This is the opposite to the agentic state. ‘Autonomy’ means to be independent or free. So a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to agency is the agentic shift. Milgram suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone as an authority figure - this person has greater power because they have a position of social hierarchy. In most social groups when one person is in charge others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency.
Binding factors
Many participants wanted to stop but felt powerless. They remained in the agentic state and Milgram said this was due to binding factors. Binding factors allow individuals to ignore the damaging effects to their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain.
What is legitimacy of authority
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
Most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly.
We learn acceptance of legitimate of authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
Destructive authority
Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive, History has often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate power for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous. This was obvious in Milgram’s study when the authority used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences.
Evaluation for agentic state
strength
One strength of Milgram is that his studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience. Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and asked the experimenter questions about the procedure. Such as ‘‘who is responsible if the the learner is harmed’’ and the experimenter replied with ‘‘I’m responsible’’, the participants went ahead with the procedure with no further objections. This shows that when the participants feel less responsible they act more easily as the experimenters agent.
Limited explanation
In Rank and Jacobson’s study of nurses when being told to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient from a doctor who is clearly higher authority 16/18 disobeyed - so we can see here that the agentic shift can only account for some situations.
Evaluation for legitimacy of authority
strength
Cultural differences show that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitles to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the way societies are structures and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. A Milgram style study was conducted and found the only 14% of female Australian participants went up to 450 volts, however, German participants the rate was much higher at 85%.
Limitation of legitimacy of authority
One limitation is that the legitimacy of authority cannot explain instances of disobedience in hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. This reflects the nurse study as although working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure most of them were disobedient. This suggests that obedience levels are more likely to depend on the person.
