Milgram (1963)
Aim: find if Americans obey to unjust order from authority figure to inflict pain.
Procedure: 48 male volunteers.
- P's = teacher
- C's = learner
- Learner receive shocks by teacher when fail on work pair task. (fake)
Result: All p's went to 300V
65% went to end (450V)
Conclusion: most people obey when against conscience.
When people occupy subordinate position in a dominance hierachy they lose feelings of empathy and morality.
+/-: p's found it impossible to withdraw.
- Sent questionnaire to p's and 84% were glad to have taken part. He visited them a year later and found no psycho harm.
Orne and Holland (1968)
- Lacked ecological validity. P'S didn't believe shocks were real and they should have questioned why experimenter didn't give shocks.
Aronson+Carlsmith (1988)
- Distinguished two types of realism.
- experimental (internal validity): p's fooled into believing exp was real.
- Mundane realism (external validity): real life set up exp.
Factors affecting obediance
- Setting of experiment:
- Milgram setting prestigious yale uni. To test this he moved his exp to a seedy office. Obedience dropped. 48% continued to 450V. - Reducing power of experimenter
- Milgram told exp to give orders over phone, 26% teachers went to 450V.
- Reduced exp power by working in pairs. 96% resisted orders and 10% went to 450v. - Increasing awareness of plight of victim
- Obedience easier if victim remote. Milgram put teacher and learner in same room. Obedience dropped. When teacher had to physically put hand of learner on plate 30% went to 450v.
Obedience in the field
- people unaware taking part reducing D C's.
Hofling (1966)
- Nurse receive orders via phone from unknows doctor to administer twice dose of a drug to a patient. This broke 3 rules.
Result: 21/22 obeyed.
- When interviewed, nurses said they had been asked to do this before and doctors became annoyed at refusal.
Conclusion: Results highlight pressure to obey.
- High levels of obedience can be obtained in a real life setting.
- Nurse receive orders via phone from unknows doctor to administer twice dose of a drug to a patient. This broke 3 rules.
Result: 21/22 obeyed.
- When interviewed, nurses said they had been asked to do this before and doctors became annoyed at refusal.
Conclusion: Results highlight pressure to obey.
- High levels of obedience can be obtained in a real life setting.
The power of uniform
Bushman (1988)
- Female confederate dressed in uniform or smart.
- C ordered passer by for change for a parking meter.
Result: 70% complied to uniform
58% complied to smart.
- C ordered passer by for change for a parking meter.
Result: 70% complied to uniform
58% complied to smart.
Jackson (1990)
Aim: effects of strength and immediacy on obedience to a simple request at zoo.
Procedure: 153 adults, 55 kids.
- Approached by experimenter in zoo keeper uniform or normal visitor.
- Asked not to lean on rail. Behaviour observed.
Procedure: 153 adults, 55 kids.
- Approached by experimenter in zoo keeper uniform or normal visitor.
- Asked not to lean on rail. Behaviour observed.
Result: High strength (uniform) produced more compliance than low (normal).
Conclusion: Uniform indicates authority.
Conclusion: Uniform indicates authority.
The obedience alibi- David Mandel (1998)
- Research provides alibi for those charged with war crimes as it implies an ordinary person can commit terrible acts under social pressure.
- Adolf Eichmann= crimes against humanity in Nazi Germany. He insisted throughout trials he was just obeying orders.
- Adolf Eichmann= crimes against humanity in Nazi Germany. He insisted throughout trials he was just obeying orders.
Why do people obey?
Situational factors
- Legitimate authority:
- Amount of social power held by person. We obey people with L.A. because we trust them or they have power to punish us.
- In Milgram's study we could assume the setting influenced trust they felt in experimenter. - The authority figure takes responsibility: In Milgram's study p's continued when told they weren't responsible.
Milgram explained importance of responsibility through 'agency theory': In social situation people operate...
- when they act as autonomous individuals they are aware of consequences and choose voluntarily to behave in particular ways.
- An agentic state. They don't feel personally responsible.
- Change from autonomous to agentic is known as the agentic shift. - Graduated commitment:Milgram's study p's were gradually committed by 15V-450V.
P's wouldn't have obeyed if asked to start at 300V.
Milgram established a basis for obedience which made it difficult for p's to disobey.
-' the foot in the door technique'.
Personality factors into obedience
The authoritarian personality.
Adorno
Aim: Test if people with an authoritarian personality are obedient.
Procedure: studied 2000 american students from white middle class b.grounds.
Interviewed them about political views and early childhood experiences.
Used projective tests to assess if they were racially prejudiced.
Result: Found p's who were brough up by strict parents grew up to be obedient.
Harsh punishment led to child feeling hostile towards parents. These feelings repressed and displaced onto others, often ratial group.
- He developed the 'f' scale to measure the authoritarian personality. e.g.
Aim: Test if people with an authoritarian personality are obedient.
Procedure: studied 2000 american students from white middle class b.grounds.
Interviewed them about political views and early childhood experiences.
Used projective tests to assess if they were racially prejudiced.
Result: Found p's who were brough up by strict parents grew up to be obedient.
Harsh punishment led to child feeling hostile towards parents. These feelings repressed and displaced onto others, often ratial group.
- He developed the 'f' scale to measure the authoritarian personality. e.g.
- Conventionalism: obedience and respect for authority.
- Authoritarian aggression: Sex crimes e.g. rape deserve more than prison.
- Power and toughness: People divided into two classes; the strong and the weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment