Explanations for Obedience | A-level Psychology | AQA Psychology | A-level

Summary

In this video, the psychology of obedience to authority is explored, building on Milgram's famous shock experiment. It delves into three key explanations for obedience: situational factors (such as proximity, location, and uniform), the agentic state (where individuals feel less responsible for their actions when acting as agents of authority), and the authoritarian personality (characterized by strict obedience to authority). The video discusses supporting research, including studies by Bickman, Hoffling, and Adorno, and evaluates the strengths and limitations of these theories. The video also highlights how different societal contexts influence obedience and provides useful tips for psychology students.

Takeaways

• 😀 Milgram's original obedience experiment found that 65% of participants obeyed orders to administer potentially harmful shocks to a learner.
• 😀 Obedience rates can vary based on situational factors, such as proximity, location, and uniform. For example, obedience dropped when the teacher and learner were in the same room.
• 😀 A field study by Bickman (1974) supported Milgram’s findings, showing that obedience increased when the experimenter wore a uniform (guard) versus casual attire (Milkman).
• 😀 Cultural differences can affect obedience rates. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found much lower obedience in Australia (16%) compared to Milgram’s original study (65%).
• 😀 Milgram's concept of the agentic state suggests that people are more likely to obey when they perceive themselves as agents carrying out someone else's will.
• 😀 Legitimacy of authority plays a significant role in obedience. People are more likely to obey individuals perceived as legitimate authorities, like doctors or teachers.
• 😀 Binding factors, like avoiding the recognition that one’s actions were wrong or not wanting to challenge authority, can prevent individuals from stopping their obedient behavior.
• 😀 Hoffling's (1966) experiment with nurses showed that they obeyed a doctor’s orders to administer an overdose, even when it violated hospital protocols, supporting the agentic state explanation.
• 😀 Research from Tarnow (1990) showed that airplane flight crews often obeyed captains’ instructions, even when it led to accidents, highlighting the dangers of blind obedience to authority.
• 😀 The authoritarian personality, proposed by Adorno in the 1950s, suggests that people with strict adherence to authority and a black-and-white view of the world are more likely to obey.
• 😀 Studies like Elms and Milgram (1966) have linked the authoritarian personality to obedience, showing that individuals with this personality type are more likely to obey authority figures.

Q & A

What is the focus of this video?

The video focuses on exploring different explanations for obedience to authority, building on Milgram's research and considering factors like situational variables, the agentic state, legitimacy of authority, and the authoritarian personality.

How did Milgram's original experiment assess obedience?

Milgram's original experiment tested obedience by having participants act as 'teachers' who administered shocks to a 'learner' for incorrect answers. The experiment found that 65% of participants were willing to administer the maximum shock of 450 volts, despite the potential harm to the learner.

What situational variables affect obedience, according to Milgram’s variations?

Milgram identified three situational variables that affect obedience: proximity (physical closeness between the teacher and learner), location (prestigious Yale University versus a rundown office), and uniform (experimenter dressed as a scientist versus an ordinary citizen).

Can you provide an example of a study supporting the situational explanation for obedience?

Yes, Bickman’s 1974 field experiment in New York showed that people were more likely to obey when the experimenter was dressed in a security guard uniform (76% obedience) compared to when he was dressed as a Milkman (47%) or an ordinary citizen (30%).

How does cultural context affect obedience?

Cultural context can influence obedience rates. For example, Kilham and Mann’s 1974 replication of Milgram’s study in Australia found only 16% obedience, while Mantel’s 1971 replication in Germany showed an 85% obedience rate. This suggests that societal norms and upbringing affect how authority is perceived and followed.

What is the agentic state, according to Milgram?

The agentic state is a psychological condition in which individuals perceive themselves as agents carrying out orders from an authority figure, relieving them of personal responsibility for their actions. This explains why people may obey harmful instructions they would not typically follow.

What role does legitimacy of authority play in obedience?

Legitimacy of authority refers to the social recognition and acceptance of certain figures of authority. People are more likely to obey individuals they perceive as having legitimate power, such as doctors, teachers, or police officers, because their authority is socially sanctioned.

How do binding factors contribute to obedience?

Binding factors are elements of a situation that prevent individuals from disobeying authority, such as a sense of commitment to the experiment, fear of appearing rude, or the inability to backtrack on actions already taken. These factors keep participants in an agentic state.

What real-world example supports the agentic state theory?

Hoffling’s 1966 study, where nurses obeyed a doctor's telephone order to administer an overdose of medication (despite clear violations of protocol), demonstrates the agentic state in action. The nurses felt the doctor's authority justified their actions, even though they knew it was wrong.

What criticism exists for the agentic state explanation?

One criticism of the agentic state theory is its oversimplification. Milgram proposed that individuals can quickly shift between autonomous and agentic states, but Lifton’s 1986 study of Nazi doctors at Auschwitz found that such a shift can become irreversible, challenging the fluid nature of the agentic state.

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

The authoritarian personality, proposed by Adorno, refers to individuals who are highly obedient to authority, respect traditional values, and show contempt for those they see as inferior. This personality is shaped by harsh, critical parenting and is associated with rigid thinking and a lack of flexibility.

How does the authoritarian personality theory relate to prejudice?

Adorno’s research found a positive correlation between authoritarian personality traits and prejudice against minority groups. Those with authoritarian tendencies tend to view the world in black-and-white terms, seeing authority figures as deserving of respect and those lower in status as inferior.

What is a key criticism of the authoritarian personality theory?

A key criticism is that both Adorno’s research and later studies, such as Elms and Milgram’s, are correlational. This means we cannot conclusively establish a cause-and-effect relationship between having an authoritarian personality and being obedient, as other factors (like education level) may also influence obedience.