Social Psychology
Obedience
Explanations of Obedience – Agency Theory
Obedience = submission to direct orders from someone in
authority
Compliance = going along with what someone says, while not
necessarily agreeing with it (Milgram)
Milgram’s theory (created after his research – his explanation for what he observed)
Moral strain: physical distress, morals conflicted by situation, authority figure issues
orders against conscience – Milgram observed this
Agentic state: go into state when you give up responsibility to the authority figure –
not following own free will, not listening to your morals, only following orders
Autonomous state: driving ourselves, own morals/free will/values
Agentic shift: switching between the two states
o Milgram blamed agentic state on evolution – an adaption/survival trait – follow
orders in order to keep society functioning (teamwork), better chance of survival if
lived in groups with leaders and followers
o Milgram influenced by Freud’s psychodynamic theory + believed state = a defence
mechanism to protect our ego – lessens moral strain, allows us to avoid dealing with
stressful situations (avoidance, repression, in denial)
- Can be used to explain Holocaust + other atrocities – soldiers merely following
orders (ordinary people)
- Eichmann gave most permissions for extermination of Jews – at Nuremburg trials,
said just following orders (agency theory explains his testimony – to do with the
situation he was in)
- My Lai Massacre – just following orders, killed innocent women and children
Hofling, Burger, Sheridan and King and Milgram support = credibility
Does explain blind obedience
Rank and Jacobsen – not support = not so credible
Does not explain all situations of obedience – social impact theory better? (explains a
lot more)
Lacks ecological validity – My Lai Massacre = real + huge difference to Milgram
Authoritarian personality (Adorno 1950) – explains better than Milgram (obey as we
have in-built personality to obey authority – some have this trait due to different
upbringings, which is why not all went to the max.)
Explanations of Obedience – Social Impact Theory
, Created by Latane (1981)
The likelihood a person will respond to social influence increases with:
Strength/Salience – how important the influencing group are to you (status,
authority, age, uniform)
Proximity/Immediacy – how close the group are at the time of influence
attempt (emotional/physical closeness), buffers
Number – how many people there are in each group (sources and targets)
Formula i=f(SIN), social impact force = influence of person (strength x immediacy
x number)
Psychological law – greater strength, immediacy + no. of the source = greater
impact on target
Multiplicative Effect: effect multiplied
Shown by Milgram, Berkowitz, Bickman (1969) – 1,424 ppts
1-15 confederates congregated on street + craned their necks to look up at the 6th
floor of a uni building
Increasing the number of confederates increased the number of passers-by imitating
their actions
Effect eventually levels off as no. of passers-by grew smaller compared to the size of
confederate group
Divisional Effect: effect divided
An audience is divided among many members an authority figure would have a
diminished ability to influence if that someone had an ally or group of allies
Shown by Milgram Variation 17: two other confederates (also teachers) refused to
obey – one stopped at 150V + other at 210V – reduced levels of obedience to 10%
By-stander effect: a lone person is more likely to help someone in need compared to
a group of people – diffusion of responsibility similar to the divisional effect
Dissent
Group Polarisation: a group tending to have more extreme ideas and attitudes than
the individuals in the group
Mathematical formula: helps society make predictions + control obedience
detrimental to society = useful predictive power
Reductionist = simple, reliable
Should be generalisable to different cultures as theory claims that the main features
are present in all groups
Strength: Bickman – people obey those in authority
Static theory: does not take into account the reciprocal effects of the individual on
their social environment + the effects of others on them the group is not a
passive individual, but interacts
Features of the individual not taken into account (e.g. personality likely to affect the
impact of others)
Reductionist: impact of others involves so many different factors, should not be
reduced to a formula (not valid)
Milgram (1963) – Named Study
Aims:
, See if volunteer ppts would obey orders from an authority (with severe
consequences and that went against their morals) to administer electric shocks
sufficient to kill someone they thought was another ppt
To create baseline data to compare to later variations
To test idea that Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures due to
WWII
Procedure: Participant and Confederate
Advertised for ppts in newspaper, volunteer sample, paid $4 for turning up
Told they were taking part in a study on human learning
40 American men aged 20-50, at Yale University
Ppts received a 45V shock – convince them generator was real
Experimenter = stern biology teacher in lab coat
Drew rigged lots, so confederate always learner + ppt always teacher
Ppts assured shocks were painful, but no permanent tissue damage
Watched Mr Wallace be strapped into chair + wired up with electrodes attached to
his arms
Ppt went in another room with a generator row of switches from 15-450V (‘slight
shock’ to ‘danger’)
Given instructions by experimenter to move up a switch (15V) each time a wrong
answer was given
Structured observation = no IV, highest shock level went to = DV (450V = complete
obedience)
Procedure: During the Experiment
o Learner given list of word pairs to remember, teacher names word + asks them to
recall its pair from a list of 4
o Learner has four buttons + answers were pre-set (approx. three wrong to every
correct)
o No signs of protest up to 300V – after this, learner bangs on the wall + stops
answering
o Experimenter told teachers to treat no answer as a wrong answer + administer
shock
o Experimenter had pre-scripted verbal prods if teacher questioned orders: from
‘please continue’ to ‘you have no other choice – you must go on’
o Experiment stopped when all prods used, teacher left or 450V reached
Procedure: Participant’s Distress
Milgram thought people would refuse to go up to 450V
Students/colleagues asked before experiment + thought 2-3% would continue to
450V none said they would have continued to the end
At end ppts interviewed using open questions/attitude scales + steps taken to ensure
ppts left feeling all right
Results:
65% obeyed to the end, 100% obeyed to 300V
Qualitative – sweating, trembling, stuttering, digging finger nails in skin, 14 showed
nervous laughter/smiling
Obedience
Explanations of Obedience – Agency Theory
Obedience = submission to direct orders from someone in
authority
Compliance = going along with what someone says, while not
necessarily agreeing with it (Milgram)
Milgram’s theory (created after his research – his explanation for what he observed)
Moral strain: physical distress, morals conflicted by situation, authority figure issues
orders against conscience – Milgram observed this
Agentic state: go into state when you give up responsibility to the authority figure –
not following own free will, not listening to your morals, only following orders
Autonomous state: driving ourselves, own morals/free will/values
Agentic shift: switching between the two states
o Milgram blamed agentic state on evolution – an adaption/survival trait – follow
orders in order to keep society functioning (teamwork), better chance of survival if
lived in groups with leaders and followers
o Milgram influenced by Freud’s psychodynamic theory + believed state = a defence
mechanism to protect our ego – lessens moral strain, allows us to avoid dealing with
stressful situations (avoidance, repression, in denial)
- Can be used to explain Holocaust + other atrocities – soldiers merely following
orders (ordinary people)
- Eichmann gave most permissions for extermination of Jews – at Nuremburg trials,
said just following orders (agency theory explains his testimony – to do with the
situation he was in)
- My Lai Massacre – just following orders, killed innocent women and children
Hofling, Burger, Sheridan and King and Milgram support = credibility
Does explain blind obedience
Rank and Jacobsen – not support = not so credible
Does not explain all situations of obedience – social impact theory better? (explains a
lot more)
Lacks ecological validity – My Lai Massacre = real + huge difference to Milgram
Authoritarian personality (Adorno 1950) – explains better than Milgram (obey as we
have in-built personality to obey authority – some have this trait due to different
upbringings, which is why not all went to the max.)
Explanations of Obedience – Social Impact Theory
, Created by Latane (1981)
The likelihood a person will respond to social influence increases with:
Strength/Salience – how important the influencing group are to you (status,
authority, age, uniform)
Proximity/Immediacy – how close the group are at the time of influence
attempt (emotional/physical closeness), buffers
Number – how many people there are in each group (sources and targets)
Formula i=f(SIN), social impact force = influence of person (strength x immediacy
x number)
Psychological law – greater strength, immediacy + no. of the source = greater
impact on target
Multiplicative Effect: effect multiplied
Shown by Milgram, Berkowitz, Bickman (1969) – 1,424 ppts
1-15 confederates congregated on street + craned their necks to look up at the 6th
floor of a uni building
Increasing the number of confederates increased the number of passers-by imitating
their actions
Effect eventually levels off as no. of passers-by grew smaller compared to the size of
confederate group
Divisional Effect: effect divided
An audience is divided among many members an authority figure would have a
diminished ability to influence if that someone had an ally or group of allies
Shown by Milgram Variation 17: two other confederates (also teachers) refused to
obey – one stopped at 150V + other at 210V – reduced levels of obedience to 10%
By-stander effect: a lone person is more likely to help someone in need compared to
a group of people – diffusion of responsibility similar to the divisional effect
Dissent
Group Polarisation: a group tending to have more extreme ideas and attitudes than
the individuals in the group
Mathematical formula: helps society make predictions + control obedience
detrimental to society = useful predictive power
Reductionist = simple, reliable
Should be generalisable to different cultures as theory claims that the main features
are present in all groups
Strength: Bickman – people obey those in authority
Static theory: does not take into account the reciprocal effects of the individual on
their social environment + the effects of others on them the group is not a
passive individual, but interacts
Features of the individual not taken into account (e.g. personality likely to affect the
impact of others)
Reductionist: impact of others involves so many different factors, should not be
reduced to a formula (not valid)
Milgram (1963) – Named Study
Aims:
, See if volunteer ppts would obey orders from an authority (with severe
consequences and that went against their morals) to administer electric shocks
sufficient to kill someone they thought was another ppt
To create baseline data to compare to later variations
To test idea that Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures due to
WWII
Procedure: Participant and Confederate
Advertised for ppts in newspaper, volunteer sample, paid $4 for turning up
Told they were taking part in a study on human learning
40 American men aged 20-50, at Yale University
Ppts received a 45V shock – convince them generator was real
Experimenter = stern biology teacher in lab coat
Drew rigged lots, so confederate always learner + ppt always teacher
Ppts assured shocks were painful, but no permanent tissue damage
Watched Mr Wallace be strapped into chair + wired up with electrodes attached to
his arms
Ppt went in another room with a generator row of switches from 15-450V (‘slight
shock’ to ‘danger’)
Given instructions by experimenter to move up a switch (15V) each time a wrong
answer was given
Structured observation = no IV, highest shock level went to = DV (450V = complete
obedience)
Procedure: During the Experiment
o Learner given list of word pairs to remember, teacher names word + asks them to
recall its pair from a list of 4
o Learner has four buttons + answers were pre-set (approx. three wrong to every
correct)
o No signs of protest up to 300V – after this, learner bangs on the wall + stops
answering
o Experimenter told teachers to treat no answer as a wrong answer + administer
shock
o Experimenter had pre-scripted verbal prods if teacher questioned orders: from
‘please continue’ to ‘you have no other choice – you must go on’
o Experiment stopped when all prods used, teacher left or 450V reached
Procedure: Participant’s Distress
Milgram thought people would refuse to go up to 450V
Students/colleagues asked before experiment + thought 2-3% would continue to
450V none said they would have continued to the end
At end ppts interviewed using open questions/attitude scales + steps taken to ensure
ppts left feeling all right
Results:
65% obeyed to the end, 100% obeyed to 300V
Qualitative – sweating, trembling, stuttering, digging finger nails in skin, 14 showed
nervous laughter/smiling
