1. General Questions What is obedience? What purpose does obedience serve? Are there some authority figures who would be questioned more than others?

2. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199547920.001.0001/acref-9780199547920

3. Examples of Obedience and Modern Obedience In addition to obedience on a large scale, people engage in obedient behaviour in everyday life. For example, doing what a boss says, stopping at red lights and so on.

4. Discussion Do you have any personal experiences where you were obedient or witnessed obedience?

5. Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today? Burger decided that to decrease stress, 150 volts could be the maximum level. Other safeguards employed were: – Two-step screening for people who may have a negative reaction. – Participants were told 3 times they could withdraw without penalty. – Sample shock to participants was 15 volts rather than 45. – Allowed little time between end of experiment and informing participants no shocks were given. – Experimenter who ran study was instructed to end the study if there was excessive stress.

6. Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today? (Continued) 29 men and 41 women. Mean age was 42.9 years. – Base condition: 1 experimenter and 1 confederate; both white men. – Modeled refusal condition: Two confederates; one was the learner in the base condition and the other was the same gender as participant. Confederate refused after 90 volts but participant was told to go on. – 70% of base condition participants continued and had to be stopped by experimenter. 63.3% in modeled refusal condition continued past 150 volts.

7. Reflections on Replicating Milgram No proof that Burger’s screening was effective. Since screening supposedly prevented people from having intense reactions, comparability is difficult because that feature was crucial in Milgram’s findings. Three consequential changes Burger made: – Introduced defiant model before participant made any responses. – Used one instead of two defiant models. – Used procedure where model refusal was less dramatic. Burger duplicated some aspects but also made some vital changes. Main point is that there are interpretive difficulties when some aspects are kept the same but others changed for ethical reasons. Miller thought that having 150 volts as the maximum was ingenious; 450 was overkill.

8. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16QMQX IjYVU – Obeying a Man in Uniform (Modern take). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16QMQX IjYVU Is there an inherent moral aspect to the obedience of people?

9. The Milgram Paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority Blass cites French and Raven’s framework to examine sources of power: – Reward – Coercive – Legitimate – Referent – Expert – Informational Blass, T. (1999). The milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x

11. The Milgram Paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority (Continued) Blass also claims that in most studies, men and women show no difference in obedience rates. (The only exceptions were in two small scale studies). Blass, T. (1999). The milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.1999.tb00134.x

13. The Milgram Paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority (Continued) Predictions of obedience often underestimate what the actual rates are. This was central to Milgram’s findings. Blass points out that Milgram found that a group of Yale students predicted 1.2% obedience. Psychiatrists predicted 0.125%. Rates of obedience show no systematic changes over time according to Blass. Blass, T. (1999). The milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15591816.1999.tb00134.x

14. Nuances of Obedience

15. Obedience Complexities If someone is “just following orders,” do their actions become justified? Are there situations where obedience is not directed in a linear way to an authority figure?

16. Crimes of Obedience Kelman defines a crime of obedience as: “an act performed in response to orders from authority that is considered illegal or immoral by the larger community.” Says that the willingness to commit the crimes may be a deciding factor under the law. Every act that is committed has a superior who has given specific orders or created a hostile atmosphere that can harbor these orders. http://dev.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Kelman_PolicyContext.pdf

17. Obedience and Religion A prime example of an institution that demands obedience is religion. – John 15:14 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jesus speaking) – Hebrews 13:17 (KJV) “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” – Ephesians 6:1-3 “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses- about-obedience-20-powerful-scriptures- quotes/#ixzz3qk9alteQ

18. Obedience and Religion (Continued) Complexities stem from the fact that religion is something that many people believe in and feel assists them navigate life; however, in return, complete obedience is demanded. In “When Religion Becomes Evil,” Kimball says one of the warning signs is blind obedience. Priests and other religious authority figures are often well- respected and receive obedience. However, there are situations where this obedience becomes evil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-WSkWxSJgA http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:guvOwsPx9vEJ:htt ps://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/CCR/article/download/13128/12989 +&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

19. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVohP- z3h4 – WWYD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWVohP- z3h4

20. Examples of Disobedience

21. Authority Relationships between Obedience and Disobedience Morselli and Passini claim that much emphasis has been placed on obedience but not on disobedience. They say that it is important to examine the constructive and destructive aspects of both. They define disobedience as the following: “Disobedience may be conceived of as a protest that undermines the legitimacy of the authority or it can represent an instrument for controlling the legitimacy of the authority’s demands, becoming a factor protecting against authoritarianism.” Passini, S., & Morselli, D. (2009). Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 96-106. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.06.001

22. Authority Relationships between Obedience and Disobedience (Continued) Morselli and Passini posit that legitimacy is a mediator for influence. I.e. people evaluate the legitimacy of someone to determine whether they hold social influence. Attribution of legitimacy is processed at three levels: – Legitimacy of the system. – Legitimacy of the authority itself such as bureaucratic. – Legitimacy of the demands of the authority. Passini, S., & Morselli, D. (2009). Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 96-106. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.06.001

23. Authority Relationships between Obedience and Disobedience (Continued) Constructive obedience involves disobeying an illegitimate request. – Avoid becoming destructive by thinking critically. Destructive obedience involves a blind placing of trust in the authority. Passini, S., & Morselli, D. (2009). Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 96-106. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.06.001

24. Authority Relationships between Obedience and Disobedience (Continued) Constructive disobedience promotes social change that benefits everybody. – Recognize the value of obedience to a functioning society while also examining the limits of authority. Destructive disobedience is done to gain individual rights. It reproduces social inequality. – In essence, this changes the distribution of inequality by arguing for oneself/own group. Passini, S., & Morselli, D. (2009). Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 96- 106. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.06.001