Obedience
Obedience is when an individual acts according to orders, usually from an authority figure. It is assumed that without the order the person would not have acted in that way.
Key Study: Milgram (1963)
A02: Problems with Milgram's obedience study
Supporting and Contradicting Evidence
Reasons why we obey
A likely exam question: Outline TWO psychological explanations for obedience (3+3 marks)
Legitimate Authority:
NAME: This explanation proposes that we obey authority figures because we respect their position and power, presuming that they know what they are doing. People obey when they recognise authority as being morally and/or legally based.
EXPLAIN: Legitimate social power is held by authority figures whose role is socially defined & determined e.g. doctors, political leaders, police personnel, etc…. this usually gives people the right to exert control over others & in turn results in others accepting this control (usually).
APPLY: Legitimate authority can clearly be seen in Milgram’s study in terms of the presence of the authority figure. For example the basic obedience rate in the original experiment was 65%, but significantly declined to 20.5% when the experimenter left the room and continued to give his instructions via the telephone.
EXTENSION: Legitimate authority can further be seen when we consider the physical environment as a legitimate situation, since the obedience rate of 65% (original experiment) dropped to 47.5% when the experiment was moved to a run down office block. Furthermore, the nurses in Hofling’s et al (1966) study claimed that the hierarchy within the medical professional disallows any dis-obedience towards a doctor (i.e. they know best).
Gradual Commitment:
NAME: Gradual commitment explains obedience in terms of the individual being asked to perform trivial, seemingly harmless tasks. Once the person has complied with such requests, they find it increasingly difficult to refuse to carry out more serious (& escalating) requests.
EXPLAIN: Milgram’s participants were encouraged to obey the experimenter by the gradual steps they were asked to take. They started with a practice session, then went on to take part in ‘the real thing’. The first ‘shock’ administered was ONLY 15 volts.
APPLY: Furthermore,each further ‘shock’ increased by ONLY 15 volts. This increase would seem less drastic than, for example, an increase from 15 volts to 450 volts.
EXTENSION: The first step in this psychological process is called ‘the foot in the door’ effect (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) and is explained by the desire to be consistent. The obedience observed by Meeus & Raajimaker (1982) further supports this, since the 15 ‘stress remarks’ given by the participant gradually increased in relation to their seriousness.
Buffers:
NAME: The term ‘buffer’ is used to refer ‘any aspect of a situation that protects people from having to confront the consequences of their actions’.
EXPLAIN: Buffers can readily be seen in Milgram’s experiment. For example, when the teacher and learner were in different rooms, the basic obedience rate was 65%. However, when they were in the same room (i.e. no physical buffer) the obedience rate dropped to 40%.
APPLY: Further buffers can be seen – for example, when the ‘teacher’ only asks the questions (& was therefore not responsible for actually administering the ‘shocks’) obedience rose dramatically to 92.5%. This can be explained in terms of a loss of responsibility.
EXTENSION: In real life situations, the person obeying may not even observe the results of their obedience, for example, during WW2, Adolf Eichmann (the angel of death) argued that he simply gave the order for millions of Jews to be exterminated, whilst never actually witnessing the consequences.
Agency Theory:
NAME: Milgram developed the agency theory to explain the psychological processes involved in obedience to authority – this proposes that people operate on TWO levels;
APPLY: Participants in Milgram’s experiment could be seen as ‘agents’, particularly as the severity of the ‘shocks’ increased. For example, when the participant became increasingly strong, the experimenter proclaimed his responsibility for what happened to the ‘learner’. This may have allowed the ‘teacher’ to make the agentic shift away from autonomy.
EXTENSION: The agentic state is also observed in Hofling’s study, since the nurses explained their obedience using the ‘hierarchy’ of authority (and therefore responsibility) in hospitals. In a real life application, Louise Ogborn’s supervisor claimed to be acting purely upon the requests of the ‘police officer’.
*** A word of advice – if the exam question is worth more than 3+3 marks, make sure that you use the EXTENSION aspect of the above!!!
Legitimate Authority:
NAME: This explanation proposes that we obey authority figures because we respect their position and power, presuming that they know what they are doing. People obey when they recognise authority as being morally and/or legally based.
EXPLAIN: Legitimate social power is held by authority figures whose role is socially defined & determined e.g. doctors, political leaders, police personnel, etc…. this usually gives people the right to exert control over others & in turn results in others accepting this control (usually).
APPLY: Legitimate authority can clearly be seen in Milgram’s study in terms of the presence of the authority figure. For example the basic obedience rate in the original experiment was 65%, but significantly declined to 20.5% when the experimenter left the room and continued to give his instructions via the telephone.
EXTENSION: Legitimate authority can further be seen when we consider the physical environment as a legitimate situation, since the obedience rate of 65% (original experiment) dropped to 47.5% when the experiment was moved to a run down office block. Furthermore, the nurses in Hofling’s et al (1966) study claimed that the hierarchy within the medical professional disallows any dis-obedience towards a doctor (i.e. they know best).
Gradual Commitment:
NAME: Gradual commitment explains obedience in terms of the individual being asked to perform trivial, seemingly harmless tasks. Once the person has complied with such requests, they find it increasingly difficult to refuse to carry out more serious (& escalating) requests.
EXPLAIN: Milgram’s participants were encouraged to obey the experimenter by the gradual steps they were asked to take. They started with a practice session, then went on to take part in ‘the real thing’. The first ‘shock’ administered was ONLY 15 volts.
APPLY: Furthermore,each further ‘shock’ increased by ONLY 15 volts. This increase would seem less drastic than, for example, an increase from 15 volts to 450 volts.
EXTENSION: The first step in this psychological process is called ‘the foot in the door’ effect (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) and is explained by the desire to be consistent. The obedience observed by Meeus & Raajimaker (1982) further supports this, since the 15 ‘stress remarks’ given by the participant gradually increased in relation to their seriousness.
Buffers:
NAME: The term ‘buffer’ is used to refer ‘any aspect of a situation that protects people from having to confront the consequences of their actions’.
EXPLAIN: Buffers can readily be seen in Milgram’s experiment. For example, when the teacher and learner were in different rooms, the basic obedience rate was 65%. However, when they were in the same room (i.e. no physical buffer) the obedience rate dropped to 40%.
APPLY: Further buffers can be seen – for example, when the ‘teacher’ only asks the questions (& was therefore not responsible for actually administering the ‘shocks’) obedience rose dramatically to 92.5%. This can be explained in terms of a loss of responsibility.
EXTENSION: In real life situations, the person obeying may not even observe the results of their obedience, for example, during WW2, Adolf Eichmann (the angel of death) argued that he simply gave the order for millions of Jews to be exterminated, whilst never actually witnessing the consequences.
Agency Theory:
NAME: Milgram developed the agency theory to explain the psychological processes involved in obedience to authority – this proposes that people operate on TWO levels;
- As autonomous individuals – behaving voluntarily & willing to take responsibility for their actions
- As an agent – individuals believe themselves to being acting on the instructions of others, as an agent & are therefore NOT responsible for their own actions
APPLY: Participants in Milgram’s experiment could be seen as ‘agents’, particularly as the severity of the ‘shocks’ increased. For example, when the participant became increasingly strong, the experimenter proclaimed his responsibility for what happened to the ‘learner’. This may have allowed the ‘teacher’ to make the agentic shift away from autonomy.
EXTENSION: The agentic state is also observed in Hofling’s study, since the nurses explained their obedience using the ‘hierarchy’ of authority (and therefore responsibility) in hospitals. In a real life application, Louise Ogborn’s supervisor claimed to be acting purely upon the requests of the ‘police officer’.
*** A word of advice – if the exam question is worth more than 3+3 marks, make sure that you use the EXTENSION aspect of the above!!!