Feb-22
1. Social influence
Obedience:
Obedience is the following of a direct order from a person with perceived authority.
Milgram (1963): obedience electrocution study
Aim = to understand why Germany obeyed Hitler despite their actions breaching moral code.
40 male volunteers (aged 20-50) told they were taking part in a ‘memory study’ at Yale
University. Paid $4.50.
Predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450V.
1. Met ‘experimenter’ (white coat) and ‘Mr Wallace’ (ordinary, nice man in his 50s). Drew a slip
of paper to determine who would be teacher and learner.
2. Participant watched Mr Wallace be strapped to electric shock machine and were told there
would be no long-term damage done.
3. Participant given a shock sample of 15V.
4. Participant (teacher) asked learner questions from another room, sat with the experimenter.
Every time an answer was wrong, participant pushed shock button (up to 450 V, ‘XXX’).
5. Learner cried out at 150V, before going silent at 300V.
6. If participant turned to experimenter, a standardised response was given, telling them to
continue (‘you must continue’, ‘it is essential that you continue’ etc.).
o No one stopped before 300V (silence). 12.5% stopped at 300V.
o 65% continued to the end (450V).
o Participants showed extreme signs of tension (e.g., sweating, trembling, stuttering, and
uncontrollable seizures).
Participants debriefed afterwards and assured that their behaviour was normal.
Milgram concluded that crimes against humanity may be due to situational factors, rather than
dispositional. Not all participants could be immoral to such an extent.
EVALUATION:
- Artificial situation
o Lab study = highly controlled. Artificial stimuli; not representative of real life.
o Therefore, low generalisability and ecological validity.
HOWEVER: + Field-study evidence
o Hofling et al (1966): nurses told by doctor to administer a lethal dose of an unknown drug.
95% of nurses obeyed.
o Therefore, evidence that obedience occurs in the same way in real life. Increases validity.
- Sample is unrepresentative
o Androcentric sample. Findings generalised to women regardless.
o Therefore, research is subject to beta bias. Findings may not be able to explain obedience in
females yet generalise anyway.
, Feb-22
Milgram’s variations: location, proximity, uniform
1. Location: Yale University
Changed to a run-down building - obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%.
2. Proximity: teacher and learner in different rooms. Experimenter and learner in same room.
(a) Teacher and learner in same room – obedience fell to 40%.
(b) Teacher placed learner’s hand on electric shock plate – obedience fell to 30%.
(c) Experimenter gave orders over the phone – obedience fell to 20.5%.
3. Uniform: experimenter wearing white lab coat
Changed to dress in ordinary clothes and introduced as member of public – obedience
fell to 20%.
Social-psychological reasons for obedience:
Agentic state: feeling no responsibility for one’s own actions; acting on behalf of an authority figure
Autonomous state = independent/ free to act according to one’s own principles. Responsible for
actions.
Experience an agentic shift when moving from autonomous to agentic state. Happens when a
person perceives another as an authority figure, higher up the social hierarchy; act as an ‘agent’
for them.
In an agentic state, anxiety/moral strain is still felt but agent feels powerless to disobey authority
figure due to binding factors.
Binding factors = aspects of a situation that allow agent to ignore/minimise the damage of their
behaviour to reduce moral strain/guilt:
(a) Shifting responsibility to victim
(b) Denying damage done to victim
(c) Fear of being rude to authority figure
EVALUATION:
+ Evidence for societal existence of agentic state
o Blass & Schmitt (2001): showed video of Milgram’s study to students who blamed the
experimenter for the damage, rather than the participants.
o Therefore, evidence that the agentic state explanation is sufficient within society to explain why
people do bad things.
- Limited explanation
o Some of Milgram’s participants did not obey (therefore did not undergo an agentic shift).
Resisted based on morality.
o Therefore, evidence that it is possible to resist influence from a perceived authority figure.
Lowers reliability of agentic state explanation.
1. Social influence
Obedience:
Obedience is the following of a direct order from a person with perceived authority.
Milgram (1963): obedience electrocution study
Aim = to understand why Germany obeyed Hitler despite their actions breaching moral code.
40 male volunteers (aged 20-50) told they were taking part in a ‘memory study’ at Yale
University. Paid $4.50.
Predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450V.
1. Met ‘experimenter’ (white coat) and ‘Mr Wallace’ (ordinary, nice man in his 50s). Drew a slip
of paper to determine who would be teacher and learner.
2. Participant watched Mr Wallace be strapped to electric shock machine and were told there
would be no long-term damage done.
3. Participant given a shock sample of 15V.
4. Participant (teacher) asked learner questions from another room, sat with the experimenter.
Every time an answer was wrong, participant pushed shock button (up to 450 V, ‘XXX’).
5. Learner cried out at 150V, before going silent at 300V.
6. If participant turned to experimenter, a standardised response was given, telling them to
continue (‘you must continue’, ‘it is essential that you continue’ etc.).
o No one stopped before 300V (silence). 12.5% stopped at 300V.
o 65% continued to the end (450V).
o Participants showed extreme signs of tension (e.g., sweating, trembling, stuttering, and
uncontrollable seizures).
Participants debriefed afterwards and assured that their behaviour was normal.
Milgram concluded that crimes against humanity may be due to situational factors, rather than
dispositional. Not all participants could be immoral to such an extent.
EVALUATION:
- Artificial situation
o Lab study = highly controlled. Artificial stimuli; not representative of real life.
o Therefore, low generalisability and ecological validity.
HOWEVER: + Field-study evidence
o Hofling et al (1966): nurses told by doctor to administer a lethal dose of an unknown drug.
95% of nurses obeyed.
o Therefore, evidence that obedience occurs in the same way in real life. Increases validity.
- Sample is unrepresentative
o Androcentric sample. Findings generalised to women regardless.
o Therefore, research is subject to beta bias. Findings may not be able to explain obedience in
females yet generalise anyway.
, Feb-22
Milgram’s variations: location, proximity, uniform
1. Location: Yale University
Changed to a run-down building - obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%.
2. Proximity: teacher and learner in different rooms. Experimenter and learner in same room.
(a) Teacher and learner in same room – obedience fell to 40%.
(b) Teacher placed learner’s hand on electric shock plate – obedience fell to 30%.
(c) Experimenter gave orders over the phone – obedience fell to 20.5%.
3. Uniform: experimenter wearing white lab coat
Changed to dress in ordinary clothes and introduced as member of public – obedience
fell to 20%.
Social-psychological reasons for obedience:
Agentic state: feeling no responsibility for one’s own actions; acting on behalf of an authority figure
Autonomous state = independent/ free to act according to one’s own principles. Responsible for
actions.
Experience an agentic shift when moving from autonomous to agentic state. Happens when a
person perceives another as an authority figure, higher up the social hierarchy; act as an ‘agent’
for them.
In an agentic state, anxiety/moral strain is still felt but agent feels powerless to disobey authority
figure due to binding factors.
Binding factors = aspects of a situation that allow agent to ignore/minimise the damage of their
behaviour to reduce moral strain/guilt:
(a) Shifting responsibility to victim
(b) Denying damage done to victim
(c) Fear of being rude to authority figure
EVALUATION:
+ Evidence for societal existence of agentic state
o Blass & Schmitt (2001): showed video of Milgram’s study to students who blamed the
experimenter for the damage, rather than the participants.
o Therefore, evidence that the agentic state explanation is sufficient within society to explain why
people do bad things.
- Limited explanation
o Some of Milgram’s participants did not obey (therefore did not undergo an agentic shift).
Resisted based on morality.
o Therefore, evidence that it is possible to resist influence from a perceived authority figure.
Lowers reliability of agentic state explanation.
