Obedience Flashcards
(17 cards)
Milgrams study (1961) aim:
Aim:
To explore how far individuals would go in obeying an authority figure, even when actions conflict with their personal conscience.
Milgrams study (1961) procedure:
Procedure:
40 male volunteers, aged 20-30, were recruited through newspaper ads. Participants were told they were part of a learning study.
They played the role of “teacher” and administered electric shocks to a “learner” (a confederate) for incorrect answers, with shocks ranging from 15V to 450V.
An authority figure in a lab coat instructed them to continue.
Milgrams study (1961) findings:
Findings:
65% of participants administered the maximum 450V shock, despite awareness of potential harm.
Many showed extreme stress but continued. 35% stopped before the maximum shock.
Milgrams study (1961) conclusions:
Conclusions:
People are highly likely to obey authority figures even when it conflicts with personal morals.
Situational factors, such as the presence and legitimacy of authority, play a significant role in obedience.
Milgrams study (1961) criticisms:
Criticisms:
Ethical Issues: Psychological harm and deception were major concerns.
Generalizability: Results may not apply to women or other cultures.
Ecological Validity: The artificial setting may not reflect real-world scenarios.
Internal Validity: Some argue participants guessed shocks weren’t real (Orne & Holland, 1968). Countered by Sheridan & King (1972), who found high obedience in real shock conditions with animals.
Milgrams study (1961) variations:
Variations in Obedience:
Participant Reads Words, Actor Teacher Presses Buttons: 92.5%
Original Study: 65% gave 450V shocks.
Office Location: 47.5%
Teacher and Learner in Same Room: 40%
Forced Hand on Shock Plate: 30%
Orders by Telephone: 20.5%
Paired with Two Actor Teachers: 10%
Ethical issues of Milgrams study?
Milgram’s Study: Ethical Issues
Deception:
Participants were misled about the true nature of the experiment, believing it was a study on learning and memory.
Right to Withdraw:
Participants were discouraged from withdrawing, with prompts to continue despite their reluctance. Very few chose to withdraw.
Informed Consent:
Consent was obtained without informing participants of the true aim of the study.
Protection from Psychological Harm:
Participants experienced significant stress and psychological harm. There was no prior testing for such impacts. However, 80% of participants reported being glad they took part.
Counterpoint:
Milgram argued he could not have predicted the stress levels, and some participants did find the experience valuable.
What was the hospital experiment, what does it say about Milgram?
Hofling (1966) Hospital Experiment:
Nurses were instructed to administer a harmful dose of medication.
Found high obedience to authority figures (doctors), supporting Milgram’s findings on the power of perceived authority.
Ethical Issues: Nurses were deceived and experienced distress, indicating a lack of protection from harm.
Attrition: Experimental group had 22 nurses compared to 33 in the control group, suggesting higher dropout rates in the experimental condition.
Rank & Jacobson (1977) Replication:
Used a real drug familiar to nurses, did not replicate the same results.
Suggested that context and familiarity with the drug influenced behavior, indicating low reliability of Milgram’s findings in different settings.
What is the agentic state? How can we explain it?
Explanation for obedience:
When following orders from an authority figure, individuals see themselves as an agent executing the authority’s wishes, and do not take personal responsibility for their actions.
From childhood, we learn to obey authority figures and view disobedience as socially unacceptable, which can lead to discomfort when challenging authority.
What is the agentic shift?
The transition from an autonomous state (where individuals act according to their own values) to an agentic state (where they follow orders from an authority figure).
What is legitimacy of authority?
Explanation for obedience:
We obey authority figures due to their perceived legitimate power and the fear of potential punishments for disobedience.
Bickman (1974): People often comply with authority figures based on minimal information about their credentials.
Uniforms and official appearances increase perceived authority and obedience.
Situational Variables Impacting Obedience Rates:
Situational Variables Impacting Obedience Rates:
Location:
At Yale University: 65% administered the highest shock.
In a downtown office: 47.5% administered the highest shock.
Proximity:
Orders given over the phone: Obedience dropped to 20.5%.
Authority perceived as less legitimate when not present in person.
Uniform:
Bickman (1974) Uniform Study:
Obedience rates varied by uniform:
Civilian: 33%
Milkman: 57%
Guard: 89%
Dispositional Explanation for Obedience:
Adorno (1950): Individuals raised with authoritarian parenting, requiring obedience to avoid punishment, are more likely to be obedient as adults.
Other Factors Affecting Obedience Rates?
Culture:
Higher obedience in collectivist cultures (emphasis on group conformity).
Lower obedience in individualistic cultures (emphasis on personal autonomy).
Buffers:
Factors that distance individuals from the consequences of their actions, e.g., remote control in warfare. This reduces personal responsibility and can increase obedience.
What are the characteristics of an authoritarian personality? how are they formed?
Authoritarian Characteristics:
High respect for authority and adherence to rules.
Aggression towards those perceived as lower status.
Inflexible and rigid opinions and beliefs.
Emphasis on conservative and traditional values.
- Inability to express frustration towards authoritarian parents leads to displaced aggression towards weaker individuals.
*counter:
Research found that intelligence (lower IQ) was a stronger predictor of obedience than authoritarian traits.
Elm and Milgram research evaluation for Adorno:
Elms and Milgram Study:
Compared participants’ obedience levels from Milgram’s original study based on their authoritarian traits and family relationships.
More obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale for authoritarianism.
More obedient individuals reported more negative relationships with their fathers.
Counterpoint: Some fully obedient participants reported good relationships with their parents, suggesting not all high obedience is linked to harsh or authoritarian upbringing.
Support for Adorno (1950):
Altermeyer (1981):
Individuals with higher levels of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), who often have conservative political views, are more likely to be obedient.
Begue et al. (2014):
Replicated Milgram’s study as part of a fake game show.
Participants with right-wing authoritarian views were more likely to obey and administer higher shocks.
