Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Factors affecting obedience - Coggle Diagram
Factors affecting obedience
Personality- authoritarianism and locus of control
Adorno developed the idea that some individuals have authoritarian personalities that make them more submissive and obedient to authority
This develops from harsh parenting styles- increases toughness and cynicism, harsher towards subordinates
Measured using the F scale (fascism)
Elms and Milgram used the F scale to measure the level of authoritarianism in some of the ppts form Milgram's study
Found that from 20 fully obedient and 20 dissenting, the obedient ppts had higher F scale ratings and displayed more traits linked to authoritarian personalities
Therefore suggests a link between obedience and personality like authoritarianism
However: Hyman and Sheatsley argue that there is no definition of a causal relationship between childhood experiences and authoritarianism - they think that other factors like lower education levels are involved
Rotter developed locus of control- the degree to which people perceive what happens to them as a consequence of their own actions, or the actions of others
Internal- take responsibility for their actions and believe that what happens to them is influenced by their own actions
They are more likely to dissent authority
External- feel that the responsibility for what happens lies with other people and chance factors like fate
Follow the behaviour of the majority and more likely to obey authority
Locus of control can be measured using a questionnaire and a scale
there is useful applications of research into links between obedience and personality- in the Human Resources sector using questionnaires to determine potential employees that will be best suited for strict procedures that need following, finding people more obedient
Also: increase success of matching people to careers so more productivity and job satisfaction
Milgram measured the locus of control of ppts from his experiment
Dissenting ppts that did not administer the 450V shock were more likely to blame themselves and then the experimenter for the shocks on the learner
Whereas, the obeying ppts were more likely to blame the experimenter and also the learner
therefore presents how internal locus of control results in dissent and taking responsibility for actions while external leads to obedience
However: Grete Schurz conducted a study where Austrian ppts were asked to administer painful doses of ultrasound to a female ppt
Found that there was no significant difference in the locus of control of ppts who obeyed and dissented (by using a questionnaire that measured locus of control)
Gender differences- common consensus of differences but not clear who is more or less obedient
Some argue women: Sheridan and kings found 90% of female ppts administered electric shocks to a puppy
only 54% of male ppts did- but women did show clear distress and were sobbing, indicating perhaps less capacity of women to disobey based on gender socialisation and expectations to be submissive
Some argue men: Kilham and Mann with an Australian sytle Milgram study- 40% of male pptts obeyed and only 16% of females
Gilligan argues moral decision making is guided by different principles of men and women
Men take ethic of justice- concerned with undertaking a detached and unbiased outlook, equality and fairness
Women- ethic of care with concern of nurture and support, interpersonal relationships
Milgram context- men more obedient as obligation felt towards the apparent scientific goals of the study
Women more concerned by the wellbeing of learner
Gilligan and Attanucci- interviews with male and female ppts over real life moral dilemmas found men and women take both principles but men favour justice orientation and women the care orientation
suggests that there are gender differences
Thomas Blass reviewed 9 Milgram style studies and reviewed them, finding no significant differences in levels of obedience between men and women
Culture
Some cultures are collectivistic and therefore value group solidarity and cooperation in pursuit of group goals
Any rebellious desires outweighed by loyalty
More obedience
Individualistic cultures value personal autonomy and self reliance and determination
Lower obedience levels
Hofstede developed cultural dimension of power distance index to measure how accepting people in a country are of hierarchal order and inequality
High PDI= higher obedience levels
He said that "subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat"
Kilham and Mann found that there are clear correlations between PDI and obedience- making it a key predictor for obedience levels
Australia has lower obedience and lower PDI
Poland has higher obedience and higher PDI
Thomas Blass however reviewed 16 studies using Milgram's methodology and found that although on first inspection they showed clear cultural differences in levels of obedience, these could actually be put down to products of the different methodologies adopted
i.e. Alonso and Pareyson Italian study- 8% fully obedient compare to 65%
but used student ppts M avoided due to compliance and competitive nature
And also lower shock level of 330V
Situational factors
Meeks and Rajimann- ppts intructed to give increasingly offensive insults to confederate applying for a job
baseline- 90% give all 15
Experimenter leaves room- 36%
Witness 2 rebellious stooges- 16%
Still need to consider individual differences- Milgram manipulated all the conditions in the tuition to enforce full obedience from all ppts bu title 35% did not
therefore clear individual differences
Setting of authority
PERceived authority can be manipulated to enforce dissent or obedience
exposure to dissenting role model