l8 Obedience to Authority Notes

8/17/2019 l8 Obedience to Authority Notes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/l8-obedience-to-authority-notes 1/11

OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY

Social infuence and obedience to authority

Classic studies o obedience

More recent obedience experiments

Revaluating explanations or obedience

OBEDIENCE “carrying out the orders given by a person invested withauthority” (Avermaet, 2001)

- nvolve the abdication o personal responsibility and orders romsomeone in higher authority! with infuence being in one direction only

Why do e o!ey" "ersonal bene#ts to the individual

$daptation to social norms

%owever! research tends to ocus on situations where individuals are

ordered to do something against their better &udgment

DE#TRUCTI$E OBEDIENCE %I&'RA% (1*)

Ba+-ro./d to %-ram3 3t.de3

'(R)M*)R+ ,R$S. $dol )ichmann on trial in srael or 'a/i war

crimes0 )ichmann claimed he was “&ust ollowing orders”

,he rationale or Milgram1s research was to examine whether people

would obey an authority #gure and commit acts that they believedcould harm another person0

,he original experiment 234567 involved. 89-:9 year-old man

;ac< =illiams > the experimenter ? Mr =allace > as another participant

o Mr =allace was a stooge! everything that happened was

preplanned > except the degree to which the real participantobeyed the experimenter1s instructions

,he R)M@,)-AC,M C@'B,@'

o 3st series o 3 diDerent experiments

o $ll variations on the same basic themeo Mr =allace was scripted to pound loudly at 699 A and ater 63: A

to stop pounding and give no urther answerso n 8nd experiment 2A@C) E))B*$CF7 teachers heard a tape

recorded series o verbal responses! which they believed were

the spontaneous reactions o Mr =allace to the ↑ shoc< levels

↑ the proximity to the victim! ↓ the proximity o the experimenter and



having the social support o Grebel1 ellow teacher all ↓ obedience!

while having someone else actually deliver the shoc< ↑ it

4art+5a/t aare/e33 "articipants led to believe that they could be either Gteacher1 or

Glearner1 > they believed it could have been them0 "articipants given a H:v shoc< to give some indication o the level o

discomort they would cause and shown Gpunishment room10

The roe o6 a.thorty ,he baseline experiment too< place in a laboratory on Iale (niversity

campus0 ,he experimenter wore a white coat0

=hen participants hesitated! the experimenter1s orders progressed

rom a mild “please continue” to a stern “you have no choice! youmust go on”0

4red+t/- the re3.t3 %ow many people obeyed in Milgram1s original experimentJ

=as this less K more K the same in Berren *rown1s replicationJ

4red+to/3 5rovded 6or %-ram Iale seniors predicted an obedience rate o 308L

"sychiatrists predicted an obedience rate o 9038:L

4red+t/- the re3.t3

(nderestimating obedience has been explained by E('B$M)',$$,,R*(,@' )RR@R (Ro33, 177)

o ,endency to place too much emphasis on personal disposition o

Gteacher1 and overloo< situational infuences Re+her a/d Ha3am (2011) argue against Gculturalist1 theory o

obedience implied by uestion Gwould people still obey todayJ1o ,his distracts our attention away rom interrogating the

conditions under which people do or do not obey “yesterday!today or indeed on any day”

%-ram re3.t3

580:L o participants continued to administer shoc<s to the highestlevel0

,he average maximum shoc< level was 65A0

n control condition 2where participants could choose their own level o

shoc<7 only 8 out o H9 exceeded 3:9A and 8 didn1t go beyond N:A7 evels o obedience varied according to diDerent conditions0



#ITUATIONA& $ARIATION#

=hen do people disobeyJ

=hen they eel responsible or their own actions

=hen they see others being disobedient

=hen they uestion the motives o those giving orders

=hen they have time to thin< about what they are being as<ed to do

=hen they react to attempts to restrict their reedom

=hen they have high levels o moral reasoning

WHY DO 4EO4&E OBEY"

1) A'ENTIC #TATE

Shit into diDerent experiential state Responsibility ceded to authority #gure

Eocus on how well doing their bidding

“$ man eels responsible to the authority directing him but eels noresponsibilty for the content o the actions the authority prescribes”(%-ram, 178, p3H:-3H57

- ,his BEE(S@' @E R)S"@'S*,I crucial to understanding 'a/i1sbehavior > )ichmann1s deense was that he was G&ust carrying outorder1

- ,he most common mental ad&ustment in the obedient participant is tosee himKhersel as an agent o external authority 2the agentic state7

o egitimate authority replaces a person1s own sel-regulation

(T.r/er, 11)o @pposite o an $(,@'@M@(S S,$,)

o s what ma<es is possible or us to unction in a hierarchical

social system Eor a group to unction as a whole! individuals

must give up responsibility and deer to others o higher status inthe social hierarchy

2) BINDIN' 9ORCE# : #TRAIN RE#O&$IN'

E;5erme/ter 3tat.3 legitimate authority

#o+a +ommtme/t re. proximity condition > easier to lie than

rebel



Ta3 e-tma+y

perceived Ggreater good1 o experiment

Ta3 /at.re

incremental K dissent O invalidation o past behaviour

RE4&ICATION# O9 %I&'RA%# #TUDY

3H replications o the study between 3456 and 34: 2the last

methodological replication o the study70 ,here was no systematic relationship between the year o the study

and the amount o obedience obtained0 $lso replicated in more naturalistic environments0

HO9&IN' ET A& (1) NUR#E #TUDIE#

'urses as<ed to administer a medication not cleared or ward use 289

mg o G$S,R@E)'17 88 nurses wor<ing in various (S hospitals @rder given by telephone

late eve on medical! surgical and psychiatric wards rom a stooge BrSmith

o Br0 Smith said he was in a hurry and would sign the drug

administration orm when he came to see the patients in 39minutes

Bose was 8 x daily maximum dose on pill box label 239 mg7

83 o 88 "s administered medication 2average call length 8 mins7 ? 33

later said that they hadn1t noticed the dosage discrepancy 39 o 38 graduate nurses and all 83 nursing students presented with

hypothetical situation reported they would not have obeyed0 Ra/ : <a+o!3o/ (177) replication with valium 2x6 recommended

dose7 ? not alone O only 8 o 3 complied

Supports the M('B$') R)$SM o Milgram1s procedure Milgram believesthat obedience is essentially the same process regardless o the particularcontext

BIC=%AN (178) IN9&UENCE O9 AUTHORITY

)xp 3. "s stopped in the street by Ga civilian1! Ga mil<man1! Ga guard1 andas<ed to pic< up a paper bag! give a dime to a stranger or move away romthe bus stop0

- $cross conditions 34L obeyed civilian! 3HL mil<man and 6L theguard0



- Situations also sig0 related to obedience. H3L dime! 88L paper bag!NL bus stop0

- 8:L comply with no explanation 2additional 65L with explanation7

)xp 8. Civilian 2H5L7 v guard 26L7P surveillance v non-surveillance 2no

impact7- B.3hma/ (1>8) replication > no authority 2H:L7 v status authority

2:9L7 v role authority 28L7

#U%%ARY 4OINT# =hat are the <ey messages rom Milgram1s studiesJ

o $ny change rom initial thoughtsJ

Why do 5eo5e o!ey"o $re you convinced by Milgram1s explanationJ

o so! whyJ

o not! why not and can you thin< o any alternative possibilitiesJ

WHY NO RECENT RE4&ICATION#"

Milgram noted that participants oten trembled! stuttered! sweated

during experiment and elt stupid and Gused1 when they learnt the truenature o the experiment0

%owever! 3 year ollow up psychiatric assessment ound no evidence o

harm and ollow up uestionnaire indicated.o HL glad to have ta<en part

o NHL elt they had learnt something o personal importance

Milgram was a pioneer in the debrie#ng procedures that are now a

matter o course in psychological experiments that involve humans0 'onetheless! ull replications do not meet *"S K $"$ ethical

reuirements or no deception! inormed consent or protection romharm0

HOW TO RE4&ICATE %I&'RA% ETHICA&&Y"

O5to/ 1? U3e mmer3ve vrt.a e/vro/me/t Some evidence or research potential (e@-@ #ater et a, 200)

O5to/ 2? 4arta re5+ato/ (B.r-er, 200) 3:9-volt solution 2N4L who continue go all the way7

,wo-step screening process 2608L interviewed were excluded7

)xplicit Gright to withdraw1 procedure 2Q:9 O unconditional7



3: volt rather than H: volt initial 2real7 shoc<

mmediate debrie#ng

)xperiment run by a clinical psychologist 2monitoring stress7

Eindings were consistent with Milgram

,o return to our pre-brea< uestions000

WHAT ARE THE =EY &E##ON# 9RO% %I&'RA%"

399 high school students studying psychology were as<ed to write a ew

sentences summarising the <ey message o Milgram1s studies (Re+her a/dHa3am, 2011)

4HL were able to provide a reasonable description

46L were o the orm Gpeople obey the instructions o people in

authority1 :5L suggested unconditional obedience2e0g0 Geven when this involves

harming others17

“ =ith numbing regularity good people were seen to <nuc<le under thedemands o authority and perorm actions that were callous and severe0 Menwho in everyday lie are responsible and decent were seduced by thetrappings o authority! by the control o their perceptions! and by theuncritical acceptance o the experimenter1s de#nition o the situation! intoperorming harsh acts”(%-ram, 1, 578)

$s with $rendt! lesson that has been drawn is that people cannot help

but obey the orders o those in authority! even when those orders areuite extreme0

o Are/dt (1) called this the *$'$,I @E )A

A CHA&&EN'E TO THI# INTER4RETATION

,his assessment o!3+.re3 varato/ in Milgram1s #ndings

o More than 89 experimental variations 2nearly H9 including pilots7

in which levels o obedience ranged rom 9L to 480:L 2399L iinclude pilot7

Milgram careully ma/5.ated 5ro+ed.re during pilot (R.33e,

2011)



o Erom 4 to 69 switches on shoc< generator 269 vs03: volt

increments7o 1)xtreme Shoc<. Banger1 #nal switch label vs0 G),%$1

o )xclusion o /ero eedbac< condition to reduce compliance.

“,his deprived us o an adeuate basis or scaling obedient

tendencies0 $ orce had to be introduced that wouldstrengthen the sub&ect1s resistance to the experimenter1scommands and reveal individual diDerence in terms o adistribution o brea<-oD points” (%-ram, 1, 51)

REE$A&UATIN' %I&'RA%# E4&ANATION

E;5ert v3 e-tmate a.thorty" %ore (1>*7 and others have argued that Milgram demonstrated

power o expert authority not legitimate authorityo “ <now what shoc<s do to you0 1m an electrical engineer and

1ve had shoc<s000 and you get real shoo< up by them > especiallyi you <now the next one is coming0 1m sorry” (%-ram, 178,

51) expert-command not simple-command authority! is it reasonable to

extrapolate #ndings to the context o mass <illingsJ ater analysis 2including %-ram, 1>*) suggests experimenter was

probably both expert and legitimate authority (Ba33, 1)

Evde/+e 6or a-e/t+ 3tate" 2Re+her : Ha3am, 2011) "articipants clearly torn between competing demands

t doesn1t tally with how participants actually behaved and it cannot

explain diDerence between diDerent experimental conditions

"s argue and remonstrate with both experimenter and learnero uote learner to challenge experimenterP uote experimenter to

rationalise actions to learner0 ac< o evidence to lin< variation in state to variation in levels o

obedienceo evels o obedience depend on participants1 exposure to the

voices o diDerent constituents



&E$E& O9 OBEDIENCE DI##ENTIN' $OICE#

@nly hear experimenters voice 2as in abandoned pilot7 obedience O

399L Slightest voice o protest rom learner! obedience drops to 5:L

$s the victim gets closer and can be heard seen and then elt!obedience continues to drop 2580:L! H9L! 69L7

=hen experimenter gives instructions and then leaves 283L7

=hen two ellow Gteachers1 dissent 239L7

=hen two experimenters issue contradictory demands 29L7

REE$A&UATIN' %I&'RA%# E4&ANATION

Critical decision points 2when most disobedience ta<es place7 are when

the learner voices clear ob&ections to the treatment $t 10 vot3! the learner explicitly demands to be released.

o “(gh )xperimenter” ,hat1s all0 +et me out o here0 told you had heart trouble0 My heart1s starting to bother me0 reuse to goon0 et me out” (%-ram, 178, 5 )

$t *1 vot3! the learner ormally withdraws consent.

o “2an intensely agoni/ed scream7 told you reuse to answer0 1m

no longer part o this experiment”

REA44RAI#IN' %I&'RA%# E4ERI%ENT#

Order v3@ re.e3t?-

"rompt 3. G"lease continue 1or G"lease go on1- "rompt 8. ,he experiment reuires that you continue

- "rompt 6. t is absolutely essential that you continue

- "rompt H. Iou have no other choice0 Iou must go on

@nly one published transcript o reaction to #nal prompt.

o “i this were Russia! maybe! but not in $merica0

(Theexperimentis terminated)” (%-ram, 178, 58>) B.r-er (200) replication

o on every occasion Hth prompt used! participants reused to

continue0

HoF/- et a (1) wording.o “=ill you please chec< the medicine cabinet000@<0 'ow will you

give Mr Carson a stat dose o twenty milligrams > that1s ourcapsules > o $stroten0 1ll be up in about ten minutes! and 1llsign the order then! but 1d li<e the medicine to have startedta<ing eDect”

A #OCIA& IDENTITY BA#ED E4&ANATION



Erom this perspective! obedience in the Milgram paradigm is a refection ovarying patterns o social identi#cation 2or shared social sel-categorisation7

denti#cation with experimenter 2shared scienti#c enterprise7 more

li<ely when alone with experimenter rather than all 6 in room together0

=hen experimenter imposes himsel 2by giving order7 this emphasiseslac< o shared identity K dismantles group relationship0

denti#cation with learner 2community o ordinary people7 may inhibit

obedience

,hose who sanction extreme harm against outgroups are those who identiywith and gloriy the ingroup

Can also explain orms o resistance 2in world at large and

experiments7 %as been applied to Gm!ardo3 (17*) Stanord "rison experiment

guardso ,he initial guards were Ggood apples1! some o whom turned sour

over time by powerul situational orceso ,he power o social situations isn1t limitlessP ultimately! it1s

individuals! not “the System”! that1s responsible or individual1sbehavior

#U44ORT 9OR A #OCIA& IDENTITY E4&ANATION

)xperts and non-experts were as<ed to &udge 3: variants o Milgram1s

studies to assess the extent that the set up would incline participantsto.

o Ide/t6y th the e;5erme/ter as a scientist and with the

perspective o the scienti#c community he representso Ide/t6y th the ear/er as a member o the general public

and with the perspective o the general community he represents

Ide/t+ato/ was a 3tro/- 3-/+a/t 5o3tve 5red+tor o the

level o obedience displayed in each variant0 ,his mirrors historical re-assessment o 'a/i state (=er3ha, 1*)

o

$voidance o ormal orderso Reuirement to show initiative

o “wor<ing towards the EThrer”

“)ichmann and his il< did not come to murder ;ews by accident or in a #t oabsent- mindedness! not by blindly obeying orders or by being small cogs ina big machine0 ,hey wor<ed hard! they thought hard! too< the lead overmany years0 ,hey were the alpinists o evil”



(&oo+, 2002! cited in Re+her et a, 2012)

CONC&U#ION#

Milgram1s studies have been used to demonstrate that obedience toauthority is a powerul orm o social infuence under certainconditions0

,hey also demonstrate how people typically underestimate the power

o situational orces when explaining behaviour0 Replications o Milgram1s studies have demonstrated the generality o

this eDect across cultures and time0o Uimbardo1s S") demonstrates the power o social situations to

ma<e people act in uncharacteristic ways $ brutali/ingatmosphere! li<e a prison! can induce brutality in people whoaren1t usually brutal

%owever! recent reviews suggest that when reuests are ramed asorders that people do not obey0

Erom a social identity perspective! willingness to engage in destructive

behaviour is a conscious endeavour refecting active identi#cationrather than simple obedience0

Many o the greatest crimes against humanity are committed in the

name o obedience0 +enocide tends to occur under conditions o



authori/ation! routinisation and dehumani/ation

Documents

l8 Obedience to Authority Notes