Obedience Majority & minority influence do not always involve a deliberate attempt to change someone’s behaviour Obedience always involves a direct attempt by one person to control another

Obedience “Complying with or deferring to a request or order from a legitimate authority”

Studies of Obedience Milgram (1963) A study of destructive obedience to authority Involved giving people orders to hurt and possibly kill an innocent stranger

“Milgram Study” video clip goes here

Variations on Milgram Female PPs – 65% Victim screaming – 62.5% Visible victim – 40% Physical contact – 30% Experimenter absent – 22% Run down office – 45% Disobedient confeds – 10% Confed gives shocks – 95%

Factors in Destructive Obedience Several factors increase a person’s tendency to obey an authority: Legitimacy of the authority Social isolation ‘Buffers’ between aggressor & victim Gradual commitment

Agency Theory (Milgram, 1963) People have two ways of acting Autonomous – they direct their own behaviour, and take responsibility for the results Agentic – they allow someone else to direct their behaviour, and assume that responsibility passes to that person

“Responsibility” video clip goes here

Agency Theory We act agentically when the situation or social role we are in seems to demand it E.g. when given an order by someone wearing a uniform

Resisting Obedience Educate people Students who knew about the Milgram research were less likely to obey in a similar study (Gross, 1992) Remind people of their responsibilities When Milgram’s PPs were reminded that they were responsible, almost none obeyed

Resisting Obedience Give social support In the ‘disobedient confeds’ version, obedience was much lower Attack the authority’s credibility Obedience relies on perceived legitimacy