How far can social-psychological factors of obedience explain why an normal person could push someone to their death today?

Milgram continued Social influence

What have we have covered so far? Conformity Types of conformity Compliance Identification Internalisation Explanations of conformity Normative social influence Informational social influence Research into conformity Asch (1956) opinion and social pressure Zimbard0 (1973) Variables affecting conformity Size of group Unanimity Task difficulty Times essay: Tuesday Spider diagram of all the points we have covered so far.

What are we covering this week? Obedience Research into obedience Milgram (1963) Explanations of obedience: The agency theory Legitimate theory Situational variables Dispositional factors

Is obedience still evident today? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mpAbig8ttY

Should a psychological study... Put the participants wellbeing first? Put the knowledge and understanding of human behaviour first...? Which is the most important thing??

As we know, Milgram’s experiment is one of the most controversial psychological studies ever carried out. It is incredibly unethical by today’s standards of research and has been heavily criticised. Psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim argued; “These experiments are so vile, the intention with which they were engaged in is so vile, that nothing these experiments show has any value.” But do you agree?

However... Psychologists must weigh up the costs against the benefits. They must ask; “What are the costs to the participants versus the benefits of understanding that can be gained from the results?”

Activity 1 Identify two ethical issues in Milgram’s research: For each issue state The Issue (1): Say why this is an issue in this research (refer to details of the study) How could this issue have been dealt with? (name a technique and describe how it would work) Use the ethics handout to assist you

Activity 2 In pairs, evaluate Milgram’s (1963) study in terms of other evaluation points: validity, reliability and individual differences. Extension: Are there any additional evaluation points you can think of?

A03 Milgram: Main Points A03  A03  Real life application: Nazi Germany, Holocaust, Military. Real life application: US National Transportation Safety Board, Captain (authority figure) can cause disaster on air crafts if he is in error. Ethics: Deception, Participants were told they were participating in a study on learning. Lead to lack of informed consent. It is not clear if they knew they had the right with withdraw. Ethics: Protection from Psychological harm. Participants suffered emotional strain. Individual Differences: Variation between cultures. Internal Validity: Even though the victim was in pain the experimenter did not bother. Ecological Validity/Generalisability: Is the experiment representative of real life situations?

Who agrees and disagrees with Milgram? Beaumrind (1964) – Milgram placed his participants under great emotional strain causing psychological damage! Darley (1992) – the experience of administering shocks may activate an evil aspect of an individuals personality, they feel more motivated to repeat the actions. Hofling et al. (1996) conducted a study in a hospital (realistic setting). Nurses were telephoned by Dr Smith who asked them to give a drug to a patient. Nurses should not take orders over the phone and the dosage was double. 95% did as requested. This shows that obedience does take place in real life settings! Rank and Jacobson (1975) repeated this, however the drug was familiar and they were allowed to consult their peers (more realistic?) 89% refused.

Explanations of obedience The agency theory Legitimate theory Situational variables

Milgram’s explanations… Hitler’s Agent! 1) Agentic versus Autonomous State When we perceive someone to be higher up the social hierarchy than us we are likely to act as an agent for them, believing that it is not our responsibility but instead we are simply following orders. This is called acting in a mental ‘agentic state.’ We might feel a sense of anxiety or moral strain if what we are doing is wrong, but we are powerless as we are in a lower position in the social hierarchy. The opposite of the agentic state is the autonomous state. This is where we are independent and have free will over our actions. However when ordered by an authority figure we make an agentic shift to the agentic state. We stay in the agentic state even when we want to disobey due to binding factors. These are factors of the situation which reduce our moral strain such as reassuring ourselves it is not our responsibility.

Milgram’s explanations… Hitler Eichmann 2) Legitimacy of Authority We are taught from an early age who is at the top of the social hierarchy. For example we accept that teachers, police officers and security guards all have legitimate authority. We trust them to exert their power over us appropriately and are willing to give up our independence if they do so. However some authority figures have exploited their legitimate authority to cause destruction. This is destructive authority when they order people lower down in the social hierarchy to act in cruel and torturous ways. Because we believe their authority is legitimate we act in an agentic state, believing that we are simply following orders and it is their responsibility. Soldiers & Military

Linking back to Milgram’s study… Who was the agent in Milgram’s study? What binding factors were at play in Milgram’s study which kept the teacher obedient? What made the teacher believe they were obeying legitimate authority?

Milgram’s Variations (Activity 3) In pairs estimate the rate (%) of obedience to authority for each of the variations of the study. Write it in the estimate box. The estimate reflects the percentage of participants who administered the highest level shock. Think about why you think those estimates as well! Leave the other boxes blank. We will fill these in as a class!

40% Variation 1: The Teacher and Learner were in the same room. (situational variable: proximity) 40% In the original study, the teacher and learner (victim) were seated in separate rooms. But in this variation they were seated in the same room. The obedience level dropped to 40%. This was because the teacher could experience the pain being inflicted on the learner directly.

(situational variable: proximity) Variation 2: The experimenter left the room and issued instructions by telephone. (situational variable: proximity) 20% In the original study, the experimenter sat in the same room as the teacher, closely monitoring them. But in this variation they gave their orders via telephone. The majority defied the experimenter, only 21% gave maximum shock level. No physical authority figure present = less pressure. Teachers were under less scrutiny and experienced less fear.

(legitimate authority/ situational variable: location) Variation 3: The experiment took place in a run down office rather than a prestigious university. (legitimate authority/ situational variable: location) 48% In the original study, the experimenter was conducted in a prestigious institution (Yale university) But in this variation the experiment was moved to a seedy office and the experimenter was just a member of the public. Supports the view that greater prestige = higher obedience rate

30% Variation 4: Teacher forces learners hand onto plate. (situational variable: proximity) 30% In the original study, the teacher and the learner were in a separate room But in this variation the teacher had to force the learners; hand onto an electrode plate to deliver the shock. Supports the view that when the teacher is faced more directly with the consequences of their actions, obedience is less likely.

(situational variable: location) Variation 5: Experimenter was played by an ordinary member of the public (situational variable: location) 48% In the original study, the experimenter was conducted in a prestigious institution (Yale university) But in this variation the experiment was moved to a seedy office and the experimenter was just a member of the public. Supports the view that greater prestige = higher obedience rate

65% Variation: Participants were Female No male-female differences in obedience were found. Although females did report feeling more stressed than men. This implies that differences in sex is not a major factor in obedience to authority. How many out of the 40? 65% 47.5% (office block) 40% (in the same room as one another) 30% (held learners hand on plate) 20.5% (over telephone) 0% (went against each others instructions)

40% Variation: Presence of Allies Three participants (1 real and two confederates) shared the task. When the two confederate participants refused to carry on, almost all real participants also withdrew. Only 40% administered maximum shock. They used the judgement of their peers as a reason for causing further harm to the victim.

2.5% Variation: Increasing the Discretion Teachers were given the choice of shock level they could administer. Only one participant out of 40, gave the maximum shock! Most refused to give a shock which caused the learner to protest again.

Exam practice Task 1 AO1 = Knowledge and understanding AO2 = Application of knowledge and understanding AO3 = Analysis, interpretation and evaluation Task 2 Highlight the different learning objectives in three different colours. For example AO1 = Red, AO2 = Green and AO3 = Blue. Task 3: Re-read essay 1 and 2 and turn the essays into bullet point plans, outlining the key information and assessment objectives. Task 4: Decide which structure the following essay titles should use: • Essay 1 Structure = AO1 followed by 3-5 AO3 points • Essay 2 Structure = AO1/3 repeated.

What are we covering this week? Obedience Research into obedience Milgram (1963) Explanations of obedience: The agency theory Legitimate theory Situational variables Dispositional factors: Authoritarian personality (Thursday) Exam practice next week (Monday lesson: mini quiz)