SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYOBEDIENCE

Starter

What is obedience?

• Why do we obey?

Obedience• What is obedience?

• Obedience can be defined as complying to the demands of others, usually those in positions of authority.

Milgram

• Research ignited by WW2 and Nazi Germany

• Aimed to measure the nature of obedience and the

‘Germans are different’ hypothesis

• Is this a Situational or Dispositional explanation of behaviour?

Milgram• Let’s watch the video

Video

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5cjyokVUs

Aim• The aim of the experiment was to investigate what level of

obedience would be shown when subjects were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

Sample of Participants• 40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age, were

drawn from the New Haven area. • They were obtained by responding

to a newspaper and direct mail

advertisement which asked for

volunteers to participate in a study

of memory and learning

at Yale University.

Procedure• The naive participant was asked to draw a slip of paper

from a hat to determine which role he would play.

• The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and Mr. Wallace (the confederate) was always the learner.

Procedure• Each participant was told that the experiment aimed to see

how punishment affected learning.

• Each study would involve on teacher and one learner, the ‘teacher’ being the participant. The ‘teacher’ was taken into a room where the learner was strapped into an electric chair, to prevent excessive movement when the shocks were delivered.

• An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and also attached to a shock generator in the next room. The experimenter advised the learner, ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’.

The Learning Task• The ‘teacher’ was asked to read a series of word pairs to

the ‘learner’, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms. The ‘learner’ had to indicate which of the four terms originally went with the first word.

The Shock Generator: • This machine had 30 switches each labelled with a

number starting from 15 to 450 volts; there were also labels to describe intensity. In order to convince the subject that the shocks were genuine, they were given a sample shock of 45 volts on their wrist.

• The ‘teacher’ was told to give a shock for a wrong response and announce the voltage each time, reminding the participant of how intense the shocks were.

Results • All 40 of the participants obeyed up to 300 volts at which point 5 refused to

continue.

• Four more gave one further shock before refusing, two broke off at the 330 volts level and one each at 345, 360 and 375 volts.

• Therefore, a total of 14 participants defied the experimenter, and 26 obeyed.

• Overall, 65% of the subjects gave shocks up to 450 volts (obeyed) and 35% stopped sometime before 450 volts

• For many of the subjects, the crucial ‘prod’ which allowed for their internal authority (their conscience) to triumph over the external authority (the experimenter) was when the experimenter said “You have no other choice, you must go on.”.

Results • Participants sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, groaned, dug

fingernails into their flesh, and these were typical not exceptional responses.

• Quite a common sign of tension was nervous laughing fits (14 out of 40 participants), which seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre.

• Full-blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for three participants.

• With few exceptions, participants were convinced of the reality of the situation,

• In the post-experimental interview, participants were asked: ‘How painful to the learner were the last few shocks you administered to him?’ On a printed 14-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all painful’) to 14 (‘extremely painful’), the modal response was 14, with a mean of 13.42.

Activity• Read the discussion from Milgram’s journal

• List the 13 reasons he gave for the participants obeying/conflict

Why did they obey?

1. · The fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University lent the study and procedure credibility and respect.

2. · The participant believed that the experiment was for a worthy purpose - to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes.

3. · The participant believed the victim had volunteered to be in the study and therefore has an obligation to take part even if the procedures become unpleasant.

4. · The participant felt himself to be similarly obligated to take part in the procedures as planned.

5. · Being paid increased the sense of obligation.

Why did they obey?

·6. As far as the participant was concerned, the roles of learner and teacher had been allocated fairly, by drawing lots. Thus the learner could not feel aggrieved that he had been unfairly assigned his role.

7. As most participants had never been a participant in a psychology experiment before, they had little idea about the rights and expectations of experimenter and participant. The situation was novel and there were no norms operating and nobody with whom to discuss ambiguities and doubts.

8. The participants had been assured that the shocks were ‘painful but not dangerous’. This short-term pain was balanced with the possibility of long-term scientific gain.

9. The victim responded to all of the questions until the 300 volt level was reached. They had thus indicated their willingness to take part.  

Main Weaknesses

• Ethics• Ecological validity- artificial, lab setting• Unrepresentative sample- Cannot generalise

Debriefing- Is this ok then?

P’s were reunited with the unharmed Mr. Wallace andthey were assured that no shock had been delivered;

• Obedient participants were assured that their behaviour was entirely normal and that their feelings of conflict and tension were shared by other subjects, while defiant participants were supported.

• All participants received a comprehensive report when all the experiments were over detailing the procedure and the results, and they were also sent a follow-up questionnaire.

• Nearly 84% of participants said that they were glad or very glad to have participated while less than 2% said they were sorry or very sorry to have participated.

• 80% felt that more experiments of this kind should be carried out and 74% had learned something of personal importance.

Starter for milgram• In pairs

• Strengths Limitations

Variations of Milgram

• In the original study 65% went up to 450 volts

• Guess What percentage would have gone up to 450 in these variations?

Variations

1. The Study is conducted in an office building rather than Yale

2. The Teacher and learner were in the same room

3. The teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate

4. Experimenter gives orders by telephone

5. Experimenter leaves and “ordinary person” gives orders

6. Teacher sees other “teachers” rebel

7. The Teacher can choose the shock level

Results • Any surprises?

From each of the variations

What factors then effect Obedience?

List them

Mcdonald’s strip search• Real world parallels

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mpAbig8ttY

Read pages 24 and 25• Hofling et al (1966) • or• Burger (2009)

What do these studies suggest about obedience?

Scenario- recap

It is Oliver and Lola’s first day of college and they are keen to make a good impression. Oliver pretends to be interested in the other student’s conversations even though he really finds

them boring. Lola watches other students very carefully because she wants to complete her work just like they do to

avoid making mistakes.

Whose behaviour is being influenced by informational social influence?

Whose is being influence by normative?

Explain how

Essay Plan for 23/10/15• Homework packs- page 7

Describe and evaluate normative and informational social influence as explanations of conformity

• Describe (AO1) - Give a detailed account of.

• Evaluate (A03)- Judge from available evidence.

• Use pages 16 and 17 of green haired girl book to help plan

Obedience

What is the difference between an explanation and a factor (or variables)?

Read packs• Two main explanations of obedience

Person A- Agentic state

Person B- Legitimacy of Authority

1. Agentic State• Milgram explained that people actually have two states of behaviour when they

are in a social situation:

• • The autonomous state – people act according to their own values, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.

• • The agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions, and the pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

• Milgram suggested that two things must be in place in order for a person to enter the agentic state:

1. The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behaviour. That is, they are seen as legitimate.

2. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

Evaluation of agentic shift

It does not explain why some participants did not obey.

The nurses in Hofling et al’s study should have shown levels of anxiety but they did not

Agentic shift can only explain some situations of obedience…..

Cannot explain why some German soldiers killed others despite not being given direct orders to do so

2. Legitimacy of Authority • Based on a structured hierarchy

• People in certain positions hold more authority than others

• If someone possesses legitimate authority they are perceived as having the right over another

• This comes from a person’s status which might be conveyed by uniform or their position in a certain structure.

Evaluation of Legitimacy of AuthorityResearch support- Blass and Schmitt (2001), Milgram’s

variations

Research support from cross-cultural studies increases the validity

Can account for cultural differences

Application to real life- Can explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes

Choose a 4 mark question- answer it on your whiteboards

Easy 1. Explain the legitimacy of authority explanation

Medium 2. Outline one criticism of the agentic state explanation of obedience refer to Milgram’s research

Medium 2. Outline one strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation using research

Hard 3. Use an explanation of obedience to explain why a child may follow the orders of their father over the requests

from an older sibling

Situational factors/variablesaffecting obedience

• Situational factors from Milgram’s variations

• Activity sheet

Evaluation of situational variables

What factors are not included here?

Form a list

“YES! OUR ALIBI!”

Design 5 questions to test• Whether someone is likely to obey

Case study

In the canteen today you are asked by your Biology teacher to pick up a piece of litter and put it in a bin.

During half term you are lucky enough to see a teacher walking down north street. She asks you to pick up

some litter and put It in the bin.

This time you refuse

Use your knowledge to explain why you behaved differently. Provide evaluative points of your explanation