Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
explanations for obedience - Coggle Diagram
explanations for obedience
agentic state
milgram argued that people can operate in two social states either as autonomous individuals or in an agentic state. this is when a person sees herself as an agent for carrying out another persons wishes
milgram believed that as people change from one state to the other ie. autonomous to agentic state they make an agentic shift. shifting to the agentic state allows the individual to accept the authority of the person giving the order and to shift the responsibility onto them
strength- milgram provides supporting research. at times in the experiment the teacher wanted to top giving shocks to the learner but the experimenter prompted then with phrases like 'the experiment requires you to continue', and they carried on shocking the learner. the teachers underwent an agentic shift as they moved from an autonomous state where they took responsibility for the shocks and any harm done to the learner, to an agentic state where they are acting as agents for the experimenter. this increases the validity of agents state as an explanation for obedience
this shift occurs as when we are children we aresecialised to obey people in authority eg. schools, policemen
limitation- agentic shift does not explain many of the research findings, as some of milligrams ptpts didn't obey. suggests that the concept of an agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
an agent experiences high moral strain that leaves them in a a state of high anxiety, however they feel powerless to disobey the authority figure
legitimacy of authority
authority figure having credentials often legitimises the authority and makes the individual more likely to obey eg.qualifications, badge
most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over other because this allows society to function smoothly
limitation- legitimate authority does not explain many of the research findings as some of the ptpts didn't obey the authority figure despite the fact he always wore the same lab coat, suggesting concept of legitimacy of authority can only account for some situations of obedience
strength- milgram provides research support. when the legitimacy of authority was reduced by moving to a rundown office in Bridgeport, obedience rates of those going to 450v fell to 47.5%- increasing the validity of the explanation
milgrams study
aim- milgram wanted to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure to inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to
method- 40 male ptpts from range of occupations and backgrounds. volunteers who had responded to newspaper advert which offered $4.50 to take part in punishment and learning experiment. took place at Yale university . the ppt took the role of the teacher and confederates took the role of the learner and experimenter. the teacher watched the learner be strapped to the chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them it was real. the teachers role was to administer shocks each time the learner made a mistake. shocks started at 15v and increased in 15v increments to 450v. as v increased the learners (recorded) screams became louder and more dramatic. 180v complained of a weak heart. 300v banged on the wall and demanded to leave. 315v went silent giving illusion unconscious. if teacher hesitated to give shocks the researcher would give prods such as 'you have no choice, the experiment must go on'
findings- all ptpts went to 300v. 65% of ptpts went to the end of the shock generator. most ptpts found the procedure very stressful and wanted to stop, with some showing signs of extreme anxiety. although they dissented verbally, they continued to obey the researcher who verbally prodded them to continue giving the shocks
conclusion- milgram concluded that under certain circumstances, most people will obey orders that go against their conscience. when people occupy a subordinate position in hierarchy, they become less likely to lose feelings of empathy , compassion and are inclined towards blind obedience- suggests it is situational rather than dispositional factors that lead to crimes of humanity.
evaluations of explanations for obedience to authority
cultural differences as countries differ in the amount they obey. 16% of Australians went to the top voltage scale compared to 85% of germans who did. cross cultural research increases the validity of the explanation
situational variables
proximity (of teacher and experimenter)- experimenter and teacher not in the same room and the experimenter instructs and prods the teacher by telephone from another room- obedience rate of those going to 450v, fell to 21%
location- venue moved to a rundown office in Bridgeport- obedientce rate of those going to 450v, fell to 47.5%
proximity (of teacher and learner)- teacher and learner were in the same room- obedience rate of those going to 450v, fell to 40%
uniform- role of experimenter was taken over by a confederate pretending to be an ordinary member of society wearing everyday clothes- obedience rate of those going to 450v fell to 20%
there is research support from Bickman who looked at the effect of authority on obedience. confederates were dressed in either a jacket&tie, milkman uniform or as a security guard & asked passers by to provide a coin for the parking meter. found ps 2x as likely to obey security guard than jacket & tie confederate- supports milgrams conclusion that a uniform expresses authority and is a situational factor producing obedience
weakness- critics would argue that the role of proximity does not always lead to obedience. demonstrated in research involving nurses obeying an order from an unknown doctor over the telephone so they could not see uniform and where not in proximity of the doctor, suggesting lack of situational variables- therefore must be reasons other than situational variables as to why people obey