4.1.1 Obedience Flashcards

Question

What does Bickman's study suggest about uniforms?

Answer 1

Uniforms confer authority, even if not official

Answer 2

Stress and potential for power to corrupt, leading to destructive obedience

Answer 3

Punishment or withdrawal of social approval- binding factors that encourage obedience.

Answer 4

It's easier than questioning the motivation behind the order

Answer 5

It has strong external validity

Answer 6

It explains acts of atrocity throughout history involving destructive obedience to authority

Answer 7

It was enabled by thousands of ordinary people obeying horrific orders from higher authorities

Answer 8

Research evidence, such as Blass & Schmitt (2001).

Answer 9

- showed a film of Milgram's original obedience study to students - asked them to identify who they felt was reponsible for the harm to the learner

Answer 10

- the students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant - stating that the experimenter was both the legitimate authority and the expert authority (i.e., a scientist)

Answer 11

it shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid concept when discussing destructive obedience

Answer 12

- agency theory cannot explain why some people do not obey, even when they would justified in blaming someone else for their actions

Answer 13

The agency theory offers a situational explanation of obedience, rather than a dispositional explanation

Answer 14

Both explanations for obedience are deterministic

Answer 15

They imply that those who commit acts of destructive obedience have no control over their actions

Answer 16

They negate the idea of people as autonomous and able to exercise free will

Answer 17

- he devised his investigation into destructive obedience in response to the atrocities committed in WW1

Answer 18

- he hypothesised that Germans must be different to other nations because of their involvement in the Holocaust

Answer 19

- dispositional approach - assuming that obedience results from personality factors rather than situational ones

Answer 20

- he conducted an experiment (originally as a pilot study) - to test obedience under controlled conditions

Answer 21

- 40 males - aged 20-50 years old - from a variety of background

Answer 22

- through volunteer sampling using leaflets and newspaper advertisements

Answer 23

- each participant was given the role of 'Teacher' - though this was not random- they were always the teacher

Answer 24

Mr Wallace was a confederate, pretending to be another participant in the role of the "Learner"

Answer 25

- the learner was strapped into a chair and attached to electrodes - which the teacher was shown before starting

Answer 26

- the teacher read out trigger words - and the learner had to macth them with memorised pairs by pressing a button

Answer 27

- the teacher had to issue an electric shock using a generator ranging from 15 to 450 volts (a "lethal" dose)

Answer 28

- the experimenter, wearing a lab coat stayed in the room and gave prompts such as "The experimenter requires that you continue" if the Teacher hesitated

Answer 29

- the learner made recorded noises of pain (e.g. "Get me out of here! Oh, that hurts!") which were fake but realistic

Answer 30

The maximum voltage level each participant administered to the Learner

Answer 31

- showed signs of extreme stress such as shaking, crying, sweating & even seizures in some cases

Answer 32

Milgram abandoned his dispositional hypothesis

Answer 33

Destructive obedience is due to situational factors, not nationality or personality

Answer 34

- the experiment took place at Yale University, a high-status institution - the experimenter's lab coat signified legitimate authority - participants had volunteered & were paid, creating a sense of commitment - participants felt they were not in control and were "just obeying orders" (agency theory)

Answer 35

Hofling et al. (1966) conducted a field study with 22 nurses

Answer 36

- each nurse was telephoned by an unknown actor - and told to administer 20mg of "Astroten", a fake drug, exceeding the 10mg limit

Answer 37

21 out of 22 nurses obeyed the unethical order, breaking hospital guidelines

Answer 38

They show that harmful acts can be committed by seemingly caring people, giving Milgram's study good external validity.

Answer 39

- they showed that destructive obedience builds gradually - a "drip-drip" effect where morals erode slowly under social pressure

Answer 40

It may lack internal validity because participants could have participants could have realised the shocks were fake

Answer 41

The participants were deceived about the study's true nature & exposed to psychological & physical stress.

Answer 42

- because of the ethical issues - the level of distress and deception would not meet modern ethical standards

Answer 43

- No - the Experimenter’s prods made it difficult for participants to leave, so right to withdraw was not fully respected.

Answer 44

How close to or far away someone or something is

Answer 45

- destructive obedience is easier when the person being harmed is out of sight - as this reduces moral strain

Answer 46

Milgram predicted that obedience decreases as proximity increases, and vice versa

Answer 47

The closer the Teacher is to the Learner, the less likely obedience is to occur

Answer 48

- the teacher and learner were in separate rooms - the teacher could hear but not see the learner

Answer 49

Obedience (participants going to 450 volts) dropped from 65% to 40%

Answer 50

Obedience dropped to 30%

Answer 51

Obedience fell to 20.5% going up to 450 volts

Answer 52

- proximity is a key variable in destructive obedience - the more remote the victim, the easier it is to harm them

Answer 53

People are more likely to obey someone who appears to be an authority figure, often signified by a uniform

Answer 54

People were more likely to obey a confederate dressed as a security guard than as a milkman or a man in plain clothes

Answer 55

Uniform confers authority, even when it's not an official uniform like a police outfit

Answer 56

Obedience is taught directly & indirectly through cultural & societal norms, beginning in childhood

Answer 57

Through social hierarchies where authority figures hold higher positions & are expected to be obeyed

Answer 58

By their uniforms, which act as markers of legitimate authority

Answer 59

That obedience decreases when the authority of the experimenter decreases (e.g. no uniform)

Answer 60

A grey lab coat- which made him appear official & in charge

Answer 61

The experimenter (in a lab coat) pretended to leave & was replaced by a man in plain clothes

Answer 62

Only 20% participants went up to 450 volts

Answer 63

Even a simple uniform like a lab coat confers authority, leading to higher obedience levels.

Answer 64

Because the study took place at Yale University, a prestigious and credible institution.

Answer 65

It gave the procedure status and legitimacy, reinforcing that they were “helping science.”

Answer 66

That obedience decreases when the location changes from high to low status.

Answer 67

He moved the study to a run-down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, run by the Research Association of Bridgeport (no mention of Yale).

Answer 68

Obedience dropped to 47.5% of participants going to 450 volts.

Answer 69

Location affects obedience- a less credible, low-status setting leads to lower obedience levels.

Answer 70

It supports the idea that situational variables like uniform significantly affect obedience.

Answer 71

- a field experiment with naïve participants - giving it high ecological validity because they were unaware they were in a study

Answer 72

- it used three distinct uniform conditions, providing a controlled independent variable

Answer 73

He used the same standardised procedure in all variations, making the results easy to compare

Answer 74

Some, such as the proximity variation where the Teacher touched the Learner’s hand, were difficult to fake, possibly leading participants to suspect deception.

Answer 75

If participants suspected the setup was fake, it would reduce the validity of the findings.

Answer 76

It could be used to excuse cruelty, e.g., people claiming “the situation made me do it” to justify acts of brutality or tyranny.

Answer 77

- based on individual characteristics - suggesting that some people are more likely to be obedient because of their personality traits

Answer 78

Theodor Adorno

Answer 79

Personality develops as a result of childhood experiences

Answer 80

The nurture side

Answer 81

- external influences on behaviour - such as upbringing, learning & environment

Answer 82

The F-scale, where "F" stands for Fascism

Answer 83

- "obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn" - "young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but they ought to get over them as they group up"

Answer 84

- fixed responses - ranging from "disagree strongly" to "agree strongly"

Answer 85

Over 2,000 middle-class white Americans

Answer 86

It did not include all racial and ethnic groups in the USA at the time

Answer 87

to reveal attitudes towards other racial group and measure authoritarian traits

Answer 88

- they are more obedient than others - and respect authority and social hierarchies

Answer 89

In a rigid, black-and-white inflexible way (e.g. "men should be real men and not show emotion")

Answer 90

They are disdainful of those showing weakness (e.g. "conscientious objectors should be despised")

Answer 91

They look down on groups such as the homeless, mentally ill, or people of different races /cultures

Answer 92

They displace anger onto lower-status people e.g. shouting at a partner after being humiliated by a boss

Answer 93

During childhood, due to overbearing, dictatorial parents who discourage free will expression

Answer 94

- strong discipline - high expectations - conditional love (e.g. "I'll love you as long as you do what I say")

Answer 95

Children learn & internalise their parents' attitudes, identifying with them & reproducing the same behaviour as adults

Answer 96

- replicated Milgram's (1963) original obedience study - whether there is a link between obedience & authoritarian personality

Answer 97

40 participants (20 high-obedience and 20 low-obedience from a replication of Milgram's study)

Answer 98

Adorno's F-scale and open-ended questions about their relationship with their parents & the experimenter

Answer 99

They scored higher on the F-scale than low-obedience participants

Answer 100

They felt less close to their fathers & showed admiration for the experimenter in Milgram's study

Answer 101

There appears to be a relationship between childhood experience, authoritarian personality & high obedience

Answer 102

It uses standardised questions, allowing it to be used repeatedly across samples

Answer 103

It produces quantitative data that can be tested for reliability (e.g. using the test-retest method)

Answer 104

It supports the idea that dispositional factors (personality) contribute to obedience, complementing Milgram's situational explanation

Answer 105

It adds depth and adresses gaps by recognising that personality & situation both influence obedience

Answer 106

They may lack validity because parcipants lie, misremember or show social desirability bias

Answer 107

- because it depends on honesty & accurate recall - & is a low-stakes task reducing motivation to be truthful

Answer 108

Not everyone who is obedient has an authoritarian personality

Answer 109

- reductionist: it reduces complex personality to a score on a scale - deterministic: it implies that specific traits automatically cause obedience, regardless of the situation

Answer 110

strength – research support • one strength is that milgram’s findings have been replicated many times, giving high external validity. • Jerry Burger (2009) used an ‘obedience lite’ procedure to avoid ethical issues. • after participants reached 150 volts (first 10 switches), data collection ended. • participants who continued to 150 volts were classed as fully obedient because milgram found 79% of these continued to the end. • Tomasz Gryb et al. (2023) used this method and found 90% of 40 participants continued to 150 volts. • obedience was the same whether orders were issued by a human or a robot. • this supports milgram’s original findings and shows the results were not limited to a specific context.

Answer 111

limitation – low internal validity • milgram’s procedure may not have tested what he intended. • he reported that 75% of participants said they believed the shocks were real. • Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) argued participants were ‘play-acting’. • Gina Perry (2013) listened to tapes and found only about half believed shocks were real. • two-thirds of participants who did not believe the shocks were real were disobedient. • this suggests participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study.

Answer 112

counterpoint – obedience is genuine • Charles Sheridan and Richard King (1972) conducted a study similar to milgram’s. • participants (all students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to an experimenter’s orders. • 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock. • this suggests that milgram’s effects were genuine because people obeyed even when the consequences were real.

Answer 113

limitation – alternative interpretation of findings • milgram’s conclusions about blind obedience may not be fully justified. • Alex Haslam et al. (2014) found participants obeyed the first three verbal prods from the experimenter. • every participant disobeyed when given the fourth prod: “you have no other choice, you must go on”. • according to social identity theory (SIT), participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the study. • when ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, participants refused. • this shows SIT may provide a more valid explanation of milgram’s findings. • milgram himself suggested identifying with the science is a reason for obedience.

Answer 114

evaluation – ethical issues • participants were deceived: • they thought allocation of roles (teacher/learner) was random. • they believed shocks were real. • milgram debriefed participants to deal with deception. • however, Diana Baumrind (1964) criticised milgram for deceiving participants. • she argued deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers.

Answer 115

strength – research support (situational variables) • other studies show situational variables influence obedience. • Leonard Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in new york city. • three confederates dressed differently: jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit, security guard uniform. • confederates asked passers-by to perform tasks (pick up litter, hand over a coin). • people were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than jacket and tie. • this supports that situational variables, like uniform, have a powerful effect on obedience.

Answer 116

strength – cross-cultural replications • milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures. • Wim Meeus and Quinten Raaijmakers (1986) studied obedience in dutch participants. • participants (men and women) were ordered to say stressful things to a desperate interviewee (confederate). • 90% of participants obeyed. • proximity effects were tested: obedience dropped when the person giving orders was absent. • this suggests milgram’s findings are valid across cultures and apply to women too.

Answer 117

counterpoint – limited cross-cultural validity • replications of milgram’s research are not very cross-cultural. • Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identified only two replications (1968–1985) in india and jordan. • other replications took place in countries culturally similar to the us (e.g., spain, australia, scotland). • therefore, it may be inappropriate to conclude that milgram’s findings (proximity, location, uniform) apply to all or most cultures.

Answer 118

limitation – demand characteristics • participants’ behaviour may not reflect true obedience. • Gina Perry (2013) suggests only about half believed shocks were real; most disbelievers were disobedient. • Taketo Murata (assistant) reported ‘not fully believed’ (NFB) participants administered more shocks than ‘fully believed’ (FB) participants. • participants may have been ‘play-acting’, responding to demand characteristics. • therefore, milgram may not have been measuring genuine obedience.

Answer 119

evaluation – the danger of the situational perspective • milgram’s findings support situational explanations (proximity, location, uniform). • David Mandel (1998) criticised this perspective. • he argued it offers an ‘alibi for evil behaviour’, which is offensive to holocaust survivors. • situational explanations ignore dispositional factors (e.g., personality). • this implies people (e.g., nazis) were victims of situational factors beyond their control, oversimplifying obedience.

Answer 120

strength – research support (agentic state) • milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience. • most participants resisted giving shocks at some point and asked questions like: “who is responsible if mr wallace is harmed?” • when the experimenter replied “i’m responsible,” participants often continued quickly with no further objections. • this shows that once participants perceived they were not responsible for their own behaviour, they acted as the experimenter’s agent. • supports milgram’s suggestion that the agentic state explains obedience.

Answer 121

limitation – a limited explanation (agentic shift) • the agentic shift cannot explain results of milgram’s variations. • Megan Birney et al. (2024) note that obedience rates varied widely (0%–100%) in different situations. • the agentic state explanation predicts high obedience regardless of situation. • therefore, obedience is influenced by specific situational characteristics, not only the agentic shift.

Answer 122

evaluation – obedience alibi revisited • David Mandel (1998) described german reserve police battalion 101 in ww2. • the men shot civilians despite not being ordered to do so; they could have been assigned other duties. • they acted autonomously, not under direct orders. • this challenges the agentic state explanation, which assumes people obey because they perceive themselves as agents of authority.

Answer 123

strength – explains cultural differences (legitimacy of authority) • the legitimacy explanation helps account for cultural differences in obedience. • Wesley Kilham and Leon Mann (1974): 16% of australian women went to 450 volts. • David Mantell (1971): 85% of german participants went to 450 volts. • shows authority is more accepted as legitimate in some cultures. • reflects societal structure and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

Answer 124

limitation – cannot explain all disobedience • legitimacy cannot explain disobedience where authority is clear. • e.g., nurses in Rank and Jacobson (1977) study were disobedient despite hierarchical authority. • a minority of milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising experimenter’s scientific authority. • suggests some people may be naturally more or less obedient. • innate tendencies may influence behaviour more than legitimacy of authority.

Answer 125

evaluation – real-world obedience • Rank and Jacobson found nurses were willing to disobey a legitimate authority (doctor). • Herbert Kelman and Lee Hamilton (1989) argue real-world crimes of obedience (e.g., my lai massacre) can be understood via power hierarchy. • commanding officers (COs) have a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors. • greater legitimate authority allows COs more power to punish, explaining obedience in such contexts.

Answer 126

strength – research support • evidence from milgram supports the AP. • Milgram and Alan Elms (1966) interviewed fully obedient participants from milgram’s studies. • participants completed the F-scale and other measures. • 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than 20 disobedient participants. • shows obedient people may display characteristics of the AP, supporting Adorno et al.’s theory.

Answer 127

counterpoint – complexity of the link • analysis of individual F-scale subscales showed obedient participants differed from typical authoritarians. • unlike authoritarians, they generally did not glorify their fathers. • they did not experience unusually harsh childhood punishment. • they did not have particularly hostile attitudes toward their mothers. • suggests the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex; AP may not reliably predict obedience.

Answer 128

limitation – limited explanation • AP cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a population. • e.g., millions in pre-war germany displayed obedient, antisemitic behaviour, but could not all have an AP. • social identity theory (SIT) offers an alternative: people obey and scapegoat outgroups because they identify with their social group. • suggests Adorno’s AP theory is limited; SIT provides a more realistic explanation.

Answer 129

limitation – incomplete explanation • the F-scale captures only one kind of authoritarianism: extreme right-wing politics. • Stephanie Mallinas et al. (2020) suggest the F-scale measures: • submission: obedience/respect for all authority • traditionalism: obedience to socially conservative authority • right-wing authoritarians score high on both; left-wing authoritarians score high on submission only. • therefore, AP theory cannot explain all historical incidents of destructive obedience.

Answer 130

evaluation – flawed evidence • F-scale research provided the basis for linking AP to obedience. • however, Fred Greenstein (1969) criticised the F-scale as a ‘comedy of methodological errors’. • e.g., high scores could result simply from selecting ‘agree’ responses. • anyone with this response bias would be incorrectly assessed as having an AP. • suggests evidence supporting the AP explanation is methodologically flawed.

4.1.1 Obedience Flashcards

(157 cards)