Social Influence Lessons 05 - 08 (obedience)

Question 1

Procedure of Milgram 1963

Answer 1

[Milgram placed an ad in a newspaper asking for male participants. 40 were invited to the Psychology Department of Yale University.]
40 participants were met by an experimenter (confederate in a lab coat), and met Mr Wallace (confederate) who pretended to have a weak heart. Mr Wallace was always the learner, the participant was always the teacher. The teacher’s role was to shock the learner if they made a mistake, increasing the voltage after each mistake. The learner and teacher were in separate rooms and to administer shocks, the teacher pressed switches on an electric shock machine with volts starting at 15 volts and rising in increments of 15 up to 450 volts. As the shocks became more severe, Mr Wallace demanded to be released, screaming, kicking the wall and complaining about his weak heart. He went silent after 300 volts. When the teacher was reluctant, the experimenter would prompt them to continue

Question 2

Findings of Milgram 1963

Answer 2

100% of participants gave shocks up to 300 volts (when Mr Wallace banged on the wall and stopped answering).
65% of participants gave electric shock all the way up to the maximum 450 volts.
Participants felt a high level of stress (symptoms including sweating, trembling, anxiety)

Question 3

Evaluation of Milgram 1963

ETHICS

Answer 3

• Participants were DECEIVED about the true nature of the experiment. They did not give INFORMED CONSENT. This was necessary to avoid DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS and increase the VALIDITY of the study
• Participants were not protected from PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM, however this was not anticipated
• Participants were not allowed to leave (violating their RIGHT TO WITHDRAW)

Question 4

Evaluation of Milgram 1963

SAMPLE

Answer 4

• The sample was UNREPRESENTATIVE (all participants were white American males)
• The results cannot be GENERALISED to women (GENDER BIAS) or other cultures (CULTURAL BIAS), however the study has been replicated with women and the obedience rate was not significantly different

Question 5

Cost benefit analysis (Milgram 1963)

Answer 5

After conducting a cost-benefit analysis (weighing the harm a study has done vs the valuable knowledge provided), the study was worthwhile

Question 6

Milgram 1974 Proximity Variation

Answer 6

Both the teacher and learner with seated in the same room
Obedience levels fell to 40%

Question 7

Milgram 1974 Touch Proximity Variation

Answer 7

The teacher had to force the learner’s arm down onto a metal plate to administer the shocks
Obedience rate was 30%

Question 8

Milgram 1974 Absent Experimenter Variation

Answer 8

The experiment left the room after giving the instructions and gave orders by telephone
Obedience rate was 21% (participants missed out shocks or gave lower voltages than they were meant to)

Question 9

Milgram 1974 Alternative Setting Variation

Answer 9

The experiment was carried out in a rundown office in downtown Bridgeport Connecticut by an experimental wearing casual clothes (as opposed to Yale and a lab coat)
Obedience rate was 48%

Question 10

Bickman 1974 (Uniform)

Answer 10

Confederate ordered passers-by to pick litter off the street or to walk over to a bus stop (menial tasks)
90% obeyed a person in a guard uniform
50% obeyed a person in smart clothes

Question 11

What can I talk about with agentic state?

Answer 11

• Situational explanation
• Autonomous state
• Agentic shift
• Diffusion of responsibility
• Gradual commitment
• Buffers
• Positive self image

Question 12

AS

Situational explanation

Answer 12

When people can obey orders due to the situation they’re in

Question 13

AS

Agentic shift

Answer 13

When people change from an autonomous state to an agentic state

Question 14

AS

Diffusion of responsibility

Answer 14

When the authority figure is responsible for the actions instead of the individual (meaning no guilt)

Question 15

AS

Gradual commitment

Answer 15

When the orders seem reasonable at first before becoming more aggressive

Question 16

AS

Buffers

Answer 16

When people are psychologically protected from the consequences of their actions

Question 17

What happens when someone enters an agentic state?

Answer 17

The person feels no guilt (diffusion of responsibility) and are able to carry out horrific orders
They perceive themselves as the instrument of the authority figure
They stay in it because they are concerned that breaking their commitment would seem arrogant and rude

Question 18

Evaluation of Agentic State

Answer 18

+ (Milgram) People were less likely to shock Mr Wallace if they were in close proximity and could see the consequences (no buffers)
- Buffers are not needed to go into an agentic state. (Mandel, 1998) Major Trapp shot a large group of Jewish people, despite being given the chance to say no. They were also in close proximity of the victims

Question 19

What can I talk about with Legitimate Authority?

Answer 19

• Social Control
• Uniform
• Location
• People tend to obey/accept definitions of the situation provided by an LA figure

Question 20

LA

Social Control

Answer 20

When the LA figure is perceived to be in a position of social control within a certain context/setting

Question 21

Where does the legitimate authority come from?

Answer 21

It stems from the LA figure’s perceived status as opposed to their personal characteristics

Question 22

What can LA be shown through?

Answer 22

Symbols of power, such as uniform

Question 23

What does LA sometimes require?

Answer 23

An institution/location (school, prison etc.)

Question 24

Evaluation of Legitimate Authority

Answer 24

+ (Hofling, 1966) Nurses would obey dangerous orders from the doctor because they were in a hospital location. Nurses received a phone call from ‘Dr Smith’ (confederate) who asked them to administer 20 mg of Astroten (really just a sugar pill), 2x the max dosage. 95% obeyed
+ (Bickman 1974) 90% of people obey a confederate dressed as a guard, 50% obeyed a confederate dressed as a civilian (guard is an LA figure)
- LA does not explain why some people are able to resist. 35% resisted in Milgram’s 1963 study

Question 25

What did Adorno (1950) propose?

Answer 25

He proposed a DISPOSITIONAL EXPLANATION of obedience (that a individual’s personality characteristics determine their behaviour, not situational influences)
He said that AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITIES are more likely to obey authority figures

Question 26

What traits do authoritarian personalities have?

Answer 26

• Servile towards people of perceived higher status
• Hostile towards people of lower status
• Preoccupied with power
• Inflexible in their beliefs and values
• Conformist and conventional (e.g. rule following)
• Likely to categorise people as ‘us’ or ‘them’
• Dogmatic (intolerant of ambiguity/narrow-minded)

Question 27

How do people develop authoritarian personalities?

Answer 27

Due to receiving extremely strict/rigid parenting, usually involving physical punishment
This creates feelings of hostility which are DISPLACED onto weaker others (safe targets)
The individual might REPRESS their anger and act in a submissive way towards parents and authority figures

Question 28

How can you measure authoritarian personalities?

Answer 28

Adorno developed a questionnaire called the F (Fascism) Scale. Participants rated how much they agreed to the statements such as ‘obedience and respect for authority are important virtues’

Question 29

Evaluation of Adorno’s Authoritarian Personalities

Answer 29

+ Miller (1975) found that people who scored highly on the F scale are more likely to obey an order to hold onto some electric wiring
+ Altmeyer (1981) found that participants with high scores were more willing to give themselves increasing levels of electrical shocks when they made a mistake on a learning task
- Situational factors may be more important than dispositional ones. Milgram (1974) conducted variations: obedience was 100% when Mr Wallace made no noise. However obedient was 0% when there were two authority figures who disagreed with each other
- Authoritarian personalities are not common. Far fewer than 65% of people have authoritarian personalities so it cannot be the only exclamation for obedience in the original Milgram (1963) study
- It is possible that a lack of education causes an authoritarian personality AND obedience. Middendorp and Meleon (1990) found that less educated people are more likely to have an authoritarian personality. Milgram (1974) found that people with lower levels of education were more obedient