Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
What is obedience?
|
- A form of social influence - An individual follows a direct order from a perceived authority figure. - Implication that the person wouldn't otherwise have responded without the order. |
|
|
APFC of Milgram's Research (1963)
|
Aim - Whether ordinary people would obey an authority figure, even when the figure was unjust & required to injure another person. Procedure - 40 male participants (volunteers-paid $4.50) @ Yale uni. - Study was supposedly about how punishment affects learning. - Told they could quit at anytime - 2 confeds: experimenter (authority figure) & learner - Real pp was always the teacher: their job to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to learner when they made a mistake. -Learner sat in another room & gave mainly the wrong answers = fake shock. - Shocks went up in 15v increments up to 300v, @ this point they banged on the wall & gave no response. - If teacher felt unsure about continuing the researcher would give verbal prods (please continue.) Findings - All = at least300v - 12.5% = stopped at 300v - 65% = highest level - 450v - Pp's showed signs of extreme tension "sweat, trembling & 3 passed out". Conclusion - Ordinary people will obey authority even when they know what they are doing is wrong - not just evil people that commit evil crimes just ordinary people obeying orders.
|
|
|
Strength of Milgram's Research: Reliability
|
- This study has been repeated numerous times. - A French televisions show 'Le Jeu de la Mort where pp's believed they were contestants in a pilot episode - They were asked to give electric shocks to other contestants when ordered by the presenter. - 80% of pp's delivered max shocks of 460v to an apparently unconscious man. - Showed same behaviour as in Milgram's: nail biting.. - Supports original findings & conclusions & is not a one-off occurrence = good reliability |
- Repeated -Le jeu de la mort - electric shock - 80% to max -not a one-off |
|
Strength of Milgram's Research: Additional Research
|
- Hofling et al - obedience in hospitals -Nurses asked by authority figure to give higher dose of unfamiliar drug to patient. - 95% (21/22) followed order. -Suggests Milgram's research has good ecological validity. - However, nurses less obedient when allowed to discuss actions w/ other nurses or use a well-known drug (11%) = other factors influence obedience levels. - Milgram's research is supported by others but doesn't account for obedience in all situations & circumstances. |
- Hofling et al - Nurses - higher dose -95% - Ecological Validity - Obedience dropped when... 11% -Doesn't account for obedience in... |
|
Limitation of Milgram's Research: Validity
|
- Orne & Holland said pp's were 'going along w/ the act'. - Argued pp's didn't really believe the set-up - guessed shocks weren't real. - Means study didn't test what it intended = lacks internal validity. - Pp's changed behaviour to please experimenter = demand characteristics. -Milgram disputed claims, debriefing film evidence shows pp's were genuinely distressed when delivering shocks. |
- Orne & Holland said... -guessed shocks weren't real - lacks internal validity - demand characteristics - Milgram disputed - film evidence |
|
Limitation of Milgram's Research: Ethical Issue - Deception -(or could use right to withdraw) |
- He told pp's the aims was to see the effect of punishment on learning. - By using deception, denied them of the right to informed consent. - But he argued deception was necessary to avoid findings becoming meaningless. - To deal w/ this ethical issue he held debriefing session, reassuring them their behaviour was normal. 84% the were glad to have taken part, 74% said they had learnt something about themselves. |
- What were the supposed aims? -Denied them the right to... - Deception was necessary - Held debriefing sessions - 84% glad.... & 74% learnt something... |
|
Outline the Explanation for Obedience: Agentic State & Milgram's Research
|
- People obey authority when they believe they are acting as an agent - on behalf of authority figure & feel less responsible for their own behaviour - When they act on their own principles this is known as the autonomous state, they constantly switch between the 2 - agentic shift. Investigation by Milgram - Obedience was higher when experimenter was in same room as teacher - 65%. - Was reduced when experimenter was instructed to give instructions via the telephone- 20.5%. - Difference due to being in agentic state. |
- Experimenter in same room - Experimenter gave instructions over phone.
|
|
Strength of Agentic State as an Explanation for Obedience: Real Life Examples
|
- People use it in defence of their actions -Adolf Eichmann (Nazi Commander responsible for genocide of millions in concentration camps). - Claimed he was simply 'only following orders' when he stood trial. - Agentic state- obeying someone higher-ranked than himself. - Shows defence can be used for those who have committed crimes. |
Milgram's Investigation - Defence - Adolf Eichmann - What did he claim - Agentic State |
|
List Possible Limitations for Agentic State...
|
1. Ignores Dispositional Factors: those w/ high social responsibility or high internal LOC = resist social pressures like obedience. 2. Individual Differences: Some people don't always obey e.g. disobedient participants in Milgram. |
|
|
Outline the Explanation for Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority & Milgram's Research
|
- Refers to amount of social power held by person giving instructions. - Social power may be associated w/ social roles (teachers..) or w/ social status (gang members) . - From young age taught obeying authority makes us more acceptable especially when they have the power to punish us. Milgram's Investigation - In variation used a run down office block = 48% obeyed - Compared to 65% in prestigious uni, Yale - Legitimacy of uni increased power of experimenter = pp's trust him more |
Milgram's Investigation - Run down - 48% - Yale- 65% - Legitimacy of uni = increase in power |
|
Strength of Legitimacy of Authority as an Explanation for Obedience: Research Support
|
- Tarnow studied data from US National Saftey Board review of air traffic accidents. - 19/37 accidents - major contributory factor = authority of captain - Co-pilots felt unable to challenge wrong decisions. - Legitimacy of Authority increased obedience = accidents. |
- Tarnow - US National Safety Board - 19/37 - authority of captain - Legitimacy of authority increased... |
|
Limitation of Legitimacy of Authority as an Explanation for Obedience: Explaining Culture Differences
|
- Kilham & Mann replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia - 16% went to top of voltage scale - Mantell's replication in Germany - 85% - Some cultures, more likely to be accepted as legitimate & entitled to demand obedience. - Gives a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. |
- Kilham & Mann- Australia - 16% to top - Mantell - 85% - Some cultures, more ikely to be accepted... |
|
What were the 3 situational variables in Milgram's Research?
|
1. Proximity 2. Location 3. Uniform |
|
|
Outline the situational variable: Proximity & Milgram's Research
|
- Distance between people, objects or situatins. - In this case, refers to how close teacher was to learner & to consequences of their actions. Milgram's Investigation - Teacher (real pp) was put in same room as learner (confed) = less obedience. - In same room teacher could see distress of learner obedience dropped - 40% - In another variation, teacher had to force learner's hand onto shock plate, dropped further - 30% |
Milgram's Investigation - Where was teacher put & what did this lead to? - What could the teacher see? - 405 - Shock Plate = 30% |
|
Strength of the Proximity as a Situational Variable: Real Life Support
|
- Explains why obeying order to press button, thousands of miles away from where missile is launched = easier than killing someone in front of you. - Difference in proximity changes the awareness of the consequences. |
- press button thousand miles away easier than... - difference in proximity changes... |
|
Outline the situational variable: Location & Milgram's Research
|
- Can affect the ways a request is view & likelihood of obedience. Milgram's Investigation - Lab in Yale Uni - Ivy League & High Status - Obedience rates higher in institutionalised settings. - In run down office block obedience dropped = 48% from 65% - Less prestigious location = obedience drops |
Milgram's Investigation - Yale = Ivy League - How does institutionalised settings affect obedience? - Run down - 48% - Less prestigious =
|
|
Strength of the Location as a Situational Variable: Control of Variables
|
- Can make direct comparison between levels of obedience in 2 locations. - Due to replication of all other variables (kept the same) - Can conclude drop in obedience due to change in location. |
- Can make a direct comparison... - B/c? - What can conclude? |
|
Outline the situational variable: Uniform & Milgram's Research
|
- Clothing worn by authority figure can affect perception a person has of them & can change whether they obey or not. Milgram's Investigation - Experimenter wore white lab coat to establish their authority throughout. - In this variation, experimenter was called away & confed acting as an ordinary person took over. - Change from uniform to no uniform reduced obedience to only 20% up to full voltage. |
Milgram's Investigation - What did experimenter wear & why? - Experimenter called away... - Change from uniform to no uniform = 20% |
|
Strength of the Uniform as a Situational Variable: Supporting Research
|
- Bickmann - field experiment in NY - He asked passers-by to complete tasks: pick up rubbish or lend him money for parking meter. - When dressed as a security guard 92% obeyed to lend money. - When in normal clothes, dropped to 58% - How important uniform can be in changing obedience rates . |
- Bickmann- What did he ask passers-by to do?- 92% = security guard- 58% normal clothes
|
|
Outline the Dispositional Explanation: Authoritarian Personality
|
- Certain people, no matter the situation, may be more obedient than others - due to their personality or disposition. - Characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and belief in absolute obedience to authority.
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno worked w/ European psychologists who fled Nazi persecution. - Argued people w/ authoritarian personality have a tendency to be extremely obedient & investigated this. |
|
|
PFC of Adorno's Authoritarian Personality experiment.
|
Procedure - Investigated causes of obedient personality in more than 2000 m/c white American men. - Developed F-Scale, which involved pp's rating their agreement w/ statements on a 6-point scale (disagree strongly to agree strongly). Findings - People who scored highly on the F-Scale identified w/ strong people & generally hostile towards the weak. - They are hyper-conscious of their status & showed excessive respect to those in positions of authority above them. - Personality originates from early childhood as a result of strict and harsh parents who expected absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards &a sever criticism of perceived failings. Conclusions - People w/ authoritarian personality have tendency to be especially obedient to authority. |
|
|
Strength of Authoritarian Personality as a Dispositional Explanation: Research Support
|
- Milgram & Elms conducted interviews w/ sample from Milgram's study. - Those who were highly obedient were significantly more authoritarian on F-Scale than disobedient pp's. - Idea of link between authoritarian personality & obedience. |
- Milgram & Elms - Those who were highly obedient were significantly... - Ideal of link between... |
|
Strength of Authoritarian Personality as a Dispositional Explanation: Additional Research
|
- Zilmer et al reported that 16 Nazi war criminals scored highly on 3 dimensions of F-Scale. - Gives support to theory that authoritarian personality increases obedience. - However, they didn't score highly on all 9 dimensions of F-Scale = limited support. |
- Zilmer et al - 16 Nazi war criminals - Gives support to theory that... - Didn't score highly on all... |
|
Limitation of Authoritarian Personality as a Dispositional Explanation: Methodological Issues
|
- Adorno & colleagues measured a range of variables & found many significant correlations between them. - No matter how strong correlation, doesn't mean that one causes the other. - Authoritarianism & obedience may be linked but link is limited -We can't conclude that authortarian personality causes high level of obedience. |
- Adorno & colleagues measure range of variables... - No matter how strong a correlation... - What can be linked but what is the downfall? -We can't conclude that... |
|
Limitation of Authoritarian Personality as a Dispositional Explanation: Determinist & Reductionist
|
- Explanation focuses on the personality being the reason why some people would obey. - Very determinist = suggests someone doesn't have a choice in whether they obey or not (free will). - Also, reductionist = ignores the impact of other factors such as situational variables which may be important. |
- What does the explanation focus on?- How is it very determinist?- How is it reductionist?
|