ObedienceBy the end of this topic, you should be able to;•Understand the differences between obedience and defiance•Explain what is meant by the term denial of responsibility•Develop insights into a number of situational factors affecting obedience, and the criticisms of these factors•Identity dispositional factors. Including the role of the authoritarian personality in obedience•Explain and outline Bickman’s research into obedience and the power of uniform•Show the awareness of applications of research into obedience for understanding institutions, such as schools, prisons and the armed forces

Social Psychology

• Focuses on the idea that humans are social animals: we spend our days in the company of others.

• What is it that makes us obey?

• Is there a particular ‘stereotype’ of who we do obey to and who we won’t?

What is obedience? Key concept!

• Following orders or commands from people of authority (a level of status or power)

• We often ‘do as we’re told’ by authority figures.

What is defiance?

• Opposite to obedience, referring to an attitude of mind that can decide to resist authority.

• Resistance to follow the crowd, become more independent and not be a ‘puppet’

Who’s in charge here?

Make a list of the people you think are figures of authority over you.

Identify;• Why they are authority

figures• What makes one

authority figure good and another a ‘pain’?

• Discuss!

Denial of responsibilityObedience can sometimes

lead to damage or destruction.

Denial of responsibility refers to when someone may say ‘I was told to do it! It was not my fault!’

Milgram (1963), put forward that when a person feels they are acting out the wishes of another person, they feel less responsible for own actions

Milgram: Theory of situational factors

Make notes on the following;• Variables being measured• Type of procedure

(describe the method used)• Findings (behaviour

observed)• Limitations of the study

Milgram: Theory of situational factors

• Public informed taking part in experiment to do with punishment and memory

• Learner (Mr Wallace) briefed to give wrong answers

• Participants to illicit electric shock when wrong answer given

• Shock intensity increases• Every participant went to 300v,

65% went up to 450v• No electricity was used!

Holfing et al• Conducted a field experiment in a psychiatric

hospital• 22 nurses were phoned by ban alias doctor to

administer 20mg of a drug called Astrofen (10mg max dose)

• 21 out of 22 went to administer the drug twice a day

• Should have refused:– Take orders from doctors known by them– Twice recommended dose– Drug not on list to be administered and required

paperwork

Match the key concept to its definition

obedience

defiance

denial of responsibility

following orders to carryout an act

to not accept blame for an action

to disobey an order

Situational factorsThink of examples of the following ‘situational

factors’• Setting (physical environment in which

something takes place)• Culture (a way of life made up of a set of rules,

standards and expectations)• Authority• Punishment• Consequence • Consensus (when everybody agrees on

something/peer pressure)

Variation in Milgram’s studyCulture Consensus Authority Setting• Australian study found male participants’ level of

complete obedience to give 450v shock was down to 40%. Rose in Italy to 80% and 85% in Austria.

• 3 participants (2 being Milgram’s assistants who advise not to shock) decide on fate of Mr Wallace. Only 10% participant groups went to 450v.

• In a run down office building, level of obedience to give 450v shock fell from 65% to 47.5%.

• An experiment not wearing a lab coat caused their rates of obedience to decrease to 20%.

Situational factors affecting obedience levels

S

C

A

P

C

ETTING

ULTURE

UTHORITY

UNISHMENT

ONSENSUS

People are more likely to obey in a formal setting.

Collectivist (share tasks) cultures tend to be more obedient than individualistic (focus more on the individual cultures.

People obey more if the individual giving orders has greater authority.

People obey more if the consequences of not obeying are more severe.

People’s obedience levels are affected by being in a group but the direction depends on what the group does.

Evaluation: Is obedience really affected by situational factors?

• A lot of evidence comes from experimentation so may have little to do with obedience in real-life. Lacks ecological validity!

• Consists of ethical issues; manipulating situations that may cause distress, embarrassment and deceiving people, possibly causing long-term harm

• This approach assumes that all people are as obedient as each other – it just depends on the situation.

• There is evidence that some people are simply more obedient than others regardless of the situation. These people are sometimes described as having an authoritarian personality.

Alternative theory: Dispositional factors

• Adorna et al. driven to try and understand the anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany which produced the holocaust, and the state of mind that allowed so many to follow Hitler’s regime.

• He devised a personality type called authoritarian personality: more prone to obey

Alternative theory: Dispositional factors

• Adorno et al (1950), interviewed 2000 college students in the USA using personality tests. Participants included white, non-Jewish middle class, such as teachers, nurses and psychiatric patients.

• F- scale: fascism (form of government or belief that praises the virtues of obedience, strong leadership, and law and order)

• Sliding scale, from slight to strong. Statements included: ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn’. Scores high in these types of Q’s were described as authoritarian personalities

Alternative theory: Dispositional factors

Analysis of the F scale revealed the characteristics of the typical authoritarian personality;

• Active dislike of people from lower social classes• Fixed and conventional ideas of right and wrong,

good and evil• Cannot deal with any ambiguity or uncertainty

about the right way to behave, and acceptable attitudes or beliefs

• Always willing to be ‘bossed’ by those of a higher status than themselves

Bickman, 1974: Method• Carried out a field experiment, which

manipulated the appearance of three male experimenters

• Gave orders to 153 randomly occurring pedestrians on the street in Brooklyn, New York

• 3 experimenters took it in turn to dress up as;– Milkman– Sports coat and tie (civilian)– Guard (closely resembling a copper)

© Boardworks Ltd 200920 of 14

Types of sampling

There are three methods of sampling often used in psychology:

Volunteer sampling relies on people who volunteer, usually in response to an advert looking for participants. The problem with this method is that the sample is biased, for example, people with an interest in the study or with lots of free time.

Opportunity sampling uses the people who are most easily available as participants. The sample is easy to find, but

biased because it is drawn from a small section of the target population. For example, if you use people from a college, the

sample would be unlikely to include many older people.

Random sampling produces the ideal sample because every member of the target population has

an equal chance of being picked to be in the sample.

Bickman, 1974

• Following orders were given;– Picking up litter: ‘pick up this bag for me’.– Coin and parking meter: ‘This man is over

parked on the meter, but doesn’t have any change – give him a dime’.

– Bus stop: ‘Don’t you know you have to stand on the other side of the pole? This sign says “No Standing”’.

Bickman, 1974: Results

• What was the percentage obedience for each of the experimenters?

• Milkman• Guard• Civilian

Findings of Bickman’s study

ObedienceRate (%)

Type of Uniform

89%

57%

33%

Limitations of Bickman’s Study

There was a lack of control over variables……due to the method being a field study, factors such as

weather and noise could have affected obedience rates.

The study was unethical…… because participants had not given consent and may

have been caused distress and discomfort.

The confederates (wearing the uniform) were all men…… so there may have been a gender bias in results – would

people react the same to women in uniforms?

Bickman, 1974: Limitations

• Opportunity sampling: no prior knowledge so may have been in a hurry or depressed

• City in one country: culturally biased

Bickman’s (1974) investigation into the power of uniform

What method did Bickman use in his investigation?

c. a laboratory experimentd. a field experimente. a questionnaire

Bickman’s (1974) investigation into the power of uniform

What method did Bickman use in his investigation?

• a laboratory experiment• a field experiment• a questionnaire

Bickman’s (1974) investigation into the power of uniform

Which of these uniforms did he not test?

c. a guard’s uniformd. a milkman’s uniforme. an army officer’s uniform

Bickman’s (1974) investigation into the power of uniform

Which of these uniforms did he not test?

• a guard’s uniform• a milkman’s uniform• an army officer’s uniform

Bickman’s (1974) investigation into the power of uniform

Which of these tasks were participants not asked to do?

c. walk down one side of the pavementd. pick up littere. give some money to a stranger

Bickman’s (1974) investigation into the power of uniform

Which of these tasks were participants not asked to do?

• walk down one side of the pavement• pick up litter• give some money to a stranger

© Boardworks Ltd 200932 of 14

Ethical issues

Applications: Keeping order in institutions

Look at the following features of obedience: People are more likely to obey if the punishment is severe. People are more likely to obey if others are. People are more likely to obey in a formal setting. People are more likely to obey if someone is in uniform.

How might this information influence people in the following situations: a newly appointed headteacher in a school a newly appointed governor in a prison a newly appointed sergeant in the armed forces