Obedience

Refers to following direct orders from an authority figure, even when these orders conflict with personal conscience or moral beliefs.

40 American males aged 20-50 years who volunteered through a newspaper advertisement for a study on memory and learning at Yale University Psychology Department. Paid $4.50 for car fare regardless of completion. Payment was guaranteed upfront to ensure Ppts didn’t feel financial pressure to complete the study, making their obedience more genuine rather than economically motivated.

Test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis, which claimed Germans were naturally more obedient and Hitler’s rise was due to unique German characteristics that situational factors.

Invesitgate whether ordinary individuals would obey authority figures even when ordered to harm innocent people, potentially challenging moral principles.

A controlled lab experiment with systematic deception. Ppts were introduced to another ‘volunteer’ and assigned the role of a ‘teacher’ through a rigged draw.
Experimenter was the authority figure in a grey lab coat providing instructions.
Teacher was the naive ppt who believed they were adminstering shocks.
Learner: Confederate was strapped to a chair with electrodes.
The ppt operated a shock generator ranging from 15V to 450V. The experimenter using standardised verbal prompts.

62.5% of Ppts (25/40) administered the maximum 450V.
100% of Ppts continued to at least 300V
Ppts displayed extreme psychological distress such as sweating, trembling, nervous laughter and nail-biting.

The ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis was decisively rejected. Ordinary Americans demonstrate capability of high levels of obedience to legitimate authority figures suggesting Holocaust reflects situational pressures rather than unique national characteristics.

Important real-world applications because it helps explain destructive obedience. The theory suggests ordinary people may obey harmful orders when they perceive the person giving orders as a legitimate authority figure. Explains blind obedience such as the Nazi soldiers in the Holocaust.

Therefore, Milgram’s research has contributed to our understanding of how destructive obedience can occur and highlights the importance of questioning immoral orders.

Raises socially sensitive issues about responsibility for destructive behaviour. Milgram argued ordinary people may commit harmful act because they are placed in situations where they object authority figures rather than bc they have a cruel personality. This may be controversial due to reduction of personal responsibility, whereas legal systems expect individuals to be accountable for their own behaviours.

It raises important ethical and social debates about the extent to which people should be responsible for their actions.

Raised ethical concerns. Ppts were deceived because they believed they were administering real electric shocks, meaning they could not give fully informed consent. Some Ppts experienced psychological distress which the ethical principle of protection from harm.
However, the ethical concerns were reduced because Milgram debrief Ppts afterwards and explained the true aims of the study. In a follow-up, 84% were glad they took part in the study.

SItuational explanations focus on environmental factors that influence obedience.
Dispositional explanations examines personality characteristics that make some individuals more likely to obey than others.

The autonomous state occurs when people act according to their own free will and take personal responsibility for their actions. When confronted by an authority figure, people may shift into an agentic state, where they surrender their free will and see themselves as merely agents carrying out the wishes of the authority figure. They no longer feel responsible for their actions, as they believe the authority figure bears the responsibility.

Remote Authority Study: Milgram conducted a variation where authority figures gave orders via telephone and obedience rates dropped from 62.5% to 20.5%

Suggests obedience occurs because individuals accept that certain people have the right to exercise power over others. It refers to the extent to which people perceive an authority figure as having justified power and status to give orders. E.g. parent-child, teacher-student and employer-employee. The authority figure hold a recognised position of power within the social hierarchy.

Refers to the physical or psychological distance between individuals and the consequences of their obedient actions.
Milgram changed the distance between the participant, authority figure and learner.
Seperate rooms: Obedience remained at 62.5%
Same room: Obedience dropped to 40%
Touch proximity: Obedience dropped to 30%
Distance from the authority figure reduced obedience because the experimenter was viewed as less legitimate. Closer proximity reduced obedience as Ppts felt more personally responsible.

The study was moved from the prestigious Yale University to a run-do