Milgram & Adorno - Explanations for obedience - Social influence [ A Level Psychology ]

Summary

This video delves into Stanley Milgram's groundbreaking obedience experiments, exploring how ordinary people can commit harmful actions under the influence of authority. Through a series of variations, the study revealed key insights into human behavior, showing that situational factors, like proximity and authority symbols, significantly impact obedience. The video also evaluates alternative theories, such as the authoritarian personality, while discussing the ethical concerns and criticisms of Milgram's methodology. Overall, it provides a comprehensive look at how authority figures influence individuals, with implications for understanding obedience in both historical and contemporary contexts.

Takeaways

• 😀 Milgram's original obedience experiment showed that 65% of participants were willing to administer potentially lethal shocks when instructed by an authority figure.
• 😀 The concept of the 'agentic state' suggests that people can follow orders without feeling personal responsibility, shifting from an autonomous state where they are accountable for their actions.
• 😀 The legitimacy of authority is key to obedience: individuals are more likely to comply with authority figures who are seen as legitimate, often reinforced by uniforms or institutional settings.
• 😀 In variations of Milgram's study, proximity (how close the authority figure is), location (prestigious vs. rundown settings), and uniform (lab coat vs. casual clothing) significantly impacted obedience rates.
• 😀 Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality posits that individuals with a strict upbringing may develop a personality predisposed to excessive obedience, which can be measured by the F-scale.
• 😀 Participants in Milgram's experiment displayed emotional distress but still continued with the shocking task, highlighting the tension between personal morality and the influence of authority.
• 😀 The 'F-scale' used by Adorno to measure authoritarian personality traits may suffer from bias, including acquiescence bias, leading to inaccurate measurements of obedience.
• 😀 The authoritarian personality theory has been criticized for oversimplifying complex historical events like the Holocaust, focusing too much on personality traits rather than societal pressures.
• 😀 Studies like those by Bickman and Huffling support Milgram’s findings, showing that situational variables such as authority figure appearance (e.g., uniform) can increase obedience.
• 😀 Milgram's findings suggest that under certain conditions, ordinary people have the potential to carry out extreme acts of obedience, even if they conflict with personal moral values.
• 😀 The distinction between dispositional and situational explanations for obedience is critical, with research supporting both perspectives, depending on individual personalities and external influences.

Q & A

What was the main goal of Stanley Milgram's original obedience experiment?

Milgram's main goal was to understand why ordinary people followed orders from authority figures, even when those orders involved harming others. Specifically, he was investigating the factors that led to extreme obedience, inspired by the Holocaust.

What did Milgram's experiment reveal about the power of authority figures?

Milgram's experiment revealed that a significant percentage of people (65%) were willing to obey an authority figure's orders to administer potentially lethal shocks, demonstrating the strong influence authority figures have over individuals' actions.

What is the 'agentic state' in Milgram's theory?

The 'agentic state' is a psychological condition in which individuals follow orders from an authority figure without feeling personal responsibility or guilt for their actions. They shift the responsibility to the authority figure, who they perceive as accountable.

How did Milgram alter his experiment to test the legitimacy of authority?

Milgram altered several situational variables, such as proximity (distance between the participant and the authority figure), location (moving the experiment to a less prestigious setting), and uniform (changing the appearance of the authority figure), to test how these factors affected obedience.

What was the effect of proximity on obedience in Milgram's variations?

When the authority figure was farther away, either by being in a different room or giving instructions over the phone, obedience dropped significantly from 65% to 21%, indicating that closer proximity to the authority figure increases obedience.

How did the location of the experiment affect participants' obedience?

When Milgram moved the experiment from Yale University to a rundown office block, the obedience rate decreased to 47.5%. This suggests that prestigious settings lend legitimacy to the authority figure, making participants more likely to obey.

What was the impact of the authority figure's uniform on obedience?

When the authority figure was dressed in a lab coat, obedience was high (65%), but when they wore plain clothes, obedience dropped to just 20%. This shows that uniforms serve as visible symbols of authority, increasing the perception of legitimacy.

What is the authoritarian personality, and how does it relate to obedience?

The authoritarian personality, as described by Adorno, refers to individuals with rigid, hierarchical attitudes who are more likely to obey authority figures. These individuals tend to have strict, conventional beliefs and may scapegoat minority groups while conforming to societal norms.

What are some criticisms of Milgram's obedience experiment?

Critics argue that Milgram's study lacked ecological validity, as the shock task was artificial and extreme. Additionally, the study faced ethical issues, such as deception, emotional distress for participants, and difficulty in allowing participants to withdraw.

How do Milgram's findings relate to real-world obedience?

Milgram's findings suggest that, under certain conditions, ordinary people are capable of extreme obedience, even to the point of harming others. This can help explain behaviors in historical events like the Holocaust, where individuals followed orders without questioning authority.