social influence- obedience Flashcards
(32 cards)
Milgram (1963) procedure
-40 American male p’s
-p’s drew lots for their role
-confederate the ‘learner’, while p’s were the ‘teachers’
-experimenter wore a lab coat
-each time a mistake made by learner on task given an electric ‘shock’ which increased each time
-shocks fake but machine labelled to make them look severe
-if teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal ‘prod’ to continue
four verbal prods used in Milligrams experiment (1963)
-‘please continue’
-‘the experiment requires you to continue’
-‘it is absolutely essential to continue’
-‘you have no other choice you must go on’
Milgram (1963) findings
-12.5% stopped at 300 volts
-65% continued to 450 volts (highest level)
-p’s showed extreme tension, three p’s had seizures
Milgram (1963) conclusions
-obey legitimate authority even if this behaviour causes harm to someone else
-certain situational factors encourage obedience
strength of Milgram: replications
-Beauvois et al. 2012 French tv show, contestants paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (actors)
-80% gave maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man
-behaviour was like Milgrams p’s supports milligrams original findings about obedience to authority
limitation Milgram: internal validity
-orne and holland (1968) argued p’s guessed electric shocks were fake so were play-acting
-supported by Perry (2013) that only half of the p’s believed the shocks were real
-p’s may have been responding to demand characteristics
limitation: findings not due to blind obedience
-Haslam et al. (2014) found every p given first three prods obeyed experimenter but those given the fourth (‘no choice’) disobeyed
-according to social identity theory first three prods required identification with the science f the research but the fourth required blind obedience
-findings best explained in terms of identification w/scientific aims not blind obedience to authority
situational variables affecting obedience
-proximity to legitimate authority
-location
-uniform
obedience: proximity
-teacher and learner in same room obedience rate dropped to 40%
-touch proximity when teacher forced learners hand onto shock plate obedience rate was 30%
-remote-instruction variation, experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone- obedience rate was 20.5% and p’s often pretended to give shocks
explanations for obedience: proximity
-decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
-when teacher and learner physical separated less aware of the harm done, so obedient
obedience: location
-study conducted in a run-down building rather than at prestigious Yale
-obedience dropped to 47.5%
explanations for obedience: location
obedience was higher at Yale as setting is legitimate and had authority
obedience: uniform
-one variation experimenter called away by a phone call at start of the procedure
-role taken over by ‘ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes
-obedience fell to 20%
explanations for obedience: uniform
-uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society
-someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
strength of Milgram’s study of obedience: situational variables
-Bickman (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits and issued demands to people of NYC
-people twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ the the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate
-shows that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience
strength of Milgram’s study of obedience: cross-cultural replication
-Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with dutch p’s who were ordered ti say stressful comments to interviewees
-found 90% obedience and obedience fell when proximity decreased
-Milgram’s findings not limited to American males but valid across cultures and so can be generalised.
limitation of Milgram’s study of obedience: internal validity
-orne and holland (1968) suggested the variations were more likely to trigger suspicion bc of the extra experimental manipulation
-variation where experimenter replaced by ‘member of public’, even milgram recognised it was so contrived that some p’s may have figured it out
-unclear whether results due to obedience or bc p’s saw the deception and play-acted (influenced by demand characteristics)
agentic state
don’t feel responsibility for actions as you become an ‘agent’ and act in place of another
autonomous state
Independent, act according to their principles and feel responsible for their own actions
agentic shift
shift from autonomy to being an ‘agent’. Milgram said it occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. this person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy
binding factors
-reduce ‘moral strain’
-allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour to reduce the moral strain they feel
-proposed a number of strategies the individual uses such as shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they’re causing
strength of agentic state: research support
-most of Milgram’s p’s asked the experimenter who is responsible if the learner is harmed
-when experimenter responded that they were the p’s went through the procedure quickly w/o objecting
-shows p’s acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour
limitation of agentic state: doesn’t explain research findings
-Rank and Jacobson (1977) found most nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to give an excessive drug dose
-doctor was an authority figure but nurses remained autonomous and didn’t shift into agentic state
-shows agentic state can only explain obedience in some situations.
legitimacy of authority
-society structured hierarchically
-power that authorities wield is legitimate as it’s agreed by society. most accept authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly
-people with legitimate authority have the power to punish others.
-give us some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly
