SI - Milgram's research into obedience Flashcards
(10 cards)
What was Milgram’s research into obedience and its evaluation
Obedience to authority
Procedure: Participants were instructed by an authority figure to give electric shocks to a “learner” (a confederate) whenever the learner made a mistake.
The shocks increased in intensity. The “learner” (not actually shocked) protested and eventually became silent, but the authority figure urged participants to continue.
Findings: 65% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock, despite showing signs of stress and discomfort. All participants went up to at least 300 volts.
Conclusion: Ordinary people will obey orders to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their own conscience
EV:
- Low internal validity; it could be argued that the participants behaved the way they did because they did not believe they were actually emitting electric shocks. In addition, they were already paid so may felt obliged to continue. But, Milgram argued that the participants stressed reactions showed they believed the experiment was real
- Low ecological validity; artificial task
- Ethical issues; participants were deceived, could not give formal consent; not aware of right to withdraw, were encouraged to continue when they wanted to stop. However, they were debriefed and 84% were pleased to have taken part
- Good external validity; lab environment reflected wider authority relationships in real life
Situational variables affecting obedience
Milgram’s variations
- Proximity: Reducing the distance between teacher and learner increases obedience
- Location: Changing the location to somewhere with less status and prestige reduced obedience
- Uniform: Uniform is a symbol of authority, obedience fell when experimenters role was taken by an ordinary member of the public
Difference between conformity and obedience
Conformity: yielding to group pressure, individual’s choice to conform, avoid ridicule
Obedience: yielding to an authority figure, direct order from authority, avoid consequences
Agentic state
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviours because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure.
Autonomous state
A mental state where we feel free to behave according to our own principles and therefore feel a sense of responsibility for our actions.
Agentic shift
When we switch from an autonomous state to an agentic state, because we perceive someone else to be an authority figure entitled to expect obedience
Legitimacy of authority
An explanation for obedience suggesting we are more likely to obey people we perceive as authority figures, whose power is seen as legitimate because society has entrusted them with it. Link to social hierarchy
Binding factors
Aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the harm they cause and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling. For example, shifting blame to the victim, ‘he was foolish to volunteer’, or denying the damage they are doing to the victim. This helps them remain in agentic state
Negative evaluation of the agentic state
- Limited explanation; doesn’t explain why some of the participants did not obey
Positive evaluation of legitimacy of authority
- Accounts for cultural differences; countries can differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. This can be explained because they might have different levels of hierarchy in society. For example, when the study was replicated in Germany there was a 85% conformity rate
