The concept of obedience and Milgram's 1963 experiment

Obedience refers to the act of following direct orders, typically from an authority figure. This behaviour often involves complying with instructions even if they conflict with personal beliefs or morals. A significant study was conducted by Milgram in 1963, which explored how far individuals would obey harmful commands under experimental conditions.

Method

• 40 male volunteers were recruited through newspaper advertisements for a study on 'learning and memory' at Yale University. They were paid for participation, regardless of whether they completed the experiment.
• Each participant was paired with a confederate (an actor posing as another participant). Roles as 'teacher' and 'learner' were assigned through a rigged draw, ensuring the real participant was always the teacher.
• The learner was strapped to a chair in a separate room, connected to a fake shock generator ranging from 15 volts ('Slight Shock') to 450 volts ('XXX'). The teacher delivered shocks for incorrect answers in a word-pair task, increasing the voltage with each mistake.
• After 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall and ceased responding. If the teacher hesitated, the experimenter, dressed in a grey technician's coat, urged them to continue.

Results

• A striking 65% of participants (26 out of 40) administered the maximum 450-volt shock.
• None stopped before reaching 300 volts, despite visible signs of distress such as sweating, trembling, and groaning.

Conclusions

• The study revealed that ordinary individuals could obey instructions to harm others, even when it went against their conscience.
• This highlights the power of authority in shaping behaviour.

Evaluation

• Some argue participants may not have believed the shocks were real, merely complying with perceived expectations (demand characteristics). However, their evident stress suggests they thought the setup was genuine.
• The task of administering shocks is unlikely in everyday life, reducing the study's real-world applicability. Yet, the controlled lab environment allowed for precise cause-and-effect analysis.
• Participants were deceived about the study's true purpose, preventing informed consent.
• They were not clearly told they could withdraw and were pressured to continue, experiencing significant stress.
• Despite this, thorough debriefing occurred, including reunions with the 'learner', and 84% reported being glad to have participated. Notably, formal ethical guidelines were not established at the time of the study.

Situational factors affecting obedience in Milgram's studies

Milgram conducted variations of his original experiment to investigate how different conditions influenced obedience levels. These situational factors demonstrated that context plays a critical role in determining whether individuals comply with authority.

Key situational influences on obedience levels

• Presence of allies - In a setup with three teachers (one real participant and two confederates), obedience dropped if the confederates refused to comply. Having supportive peers made it easier to resist authority.
• Proximity of the victim - Obedience decreased when the learner was closer. In the original setup, 65% gave the maximum shock with the learner in a separate room. This fell to 40% when in the same room and 30% when the participant had to physically place the learner's hand on the shock plate. Closeness made the learner's suffering more evident and harder to ignore.
• Proximity of the authority figure - When the experimenter gave instructions over the phone from another location, obedience dropped to 23%. Distance from the authority made resistance more feasible.
• Location and perceived legitimacy - Moving the experiment from Yale University to a less prestigious, run-down office under the guise of a private company reduced obedience to 48%. The association with a reputable institution like Yale lent greater legitimacy to the experimenter's authority, making compliance more likely.

Milgram's agency theory as an explanation for obedience

Milgram proposed the agency theory in 1973 to explain why individuals obey authority, even when it involves harmful actions. This theory focuses on the psychological shift that occurs when people act under the direction of an external authority.

Core concepts of agency theory

• Agentic state - When individuals act on behalf of an authority figure, they enter an agentic state, feeling less personally responsible for their actions as they see themselves as an agent of someone else's will.
• Autonomous state - The opposite of the agentic state, where individuals act based on their own decisions and take full responsibility for their behaviour.
• Agentic shift - The transition from acting autonomously to entering an agentic state, often triggered by the presence of authority. In Milgram's studies, participants started autonomously but shifted to an agentic state upon receiving orders.
• Binding factors - Certain elements reinforce the agentic state, including:
  • Reluctance to disrupt the experiment due to prior payment or commitment.
  • The prestigious setting of Yale University, enhancing the experimenter's authority.
  • Persistent prompts from the authority figure to continue, even when participants hesitated.
• Responsibility deflection - Participants often expressed concern for the learner's welfare but continued when assured the experimenter would take responsibility, illustrating how the agentic state reduces personal accountability.

Evaluation of agency theory

• Supporting evidence - Milgram's experiments provide strong backing, as many participants stated they would not have acted so harshly without orders, indicating they were in an agentic state.
• Limitations in explaining resistance - The theory struggles to account for why some individuals resist authority, failing to address individual differences or situational nuances that lead to independent behaviour.

The role of legitimate authority in obedience

The concept of legitimate authority significantly influences obedience, as people are socialised to respect and comply with those in recognised positions of power. This perceived legitimacy often determines the likelihood of following orders.

Understanding legitimate authority and its impact

• Socialisation to authority - From a young age, individuals learn to acknowledge the authority of figures such as parents, teachers, police officers, and doctors, viewing them as having the right to give directives.
• Defined social roles - Legitimate authority stems from roles that imply expertise or power, which are widely respected within society, increasing the tendency to obey.
• Milgram's findings on location - Obedience rates were higher at Yale University compared to a less credible setting, suggesting that the perceived status of the environment and authority figure enhances compliance.
• Bickman's 1974 field experiment - In a real-world study, passers-by were more likely to follow orders (e.g., picking up litter) from someone dressed as a security guard compared to a milkman or someone in smart casual attire. The guard's uniform conveyed greater legitimacy, prompting higher obedience.

The authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience

Beyond situational factors, personal characteristics can also explain obedience. Adorno and colleagues (1950) proposed the authoritarian personality theory, suggesting that certain traits, shaped by upbringing, predispose individuals to obey authority unquestioningly.

Characteristics and origins of the authoritarian personality

• Theory overview - This dispositional explanation posits that over-strict parenting fosters a personality type prone to blind obedience and prejudice. Such parenting creates aggression in children, which they redirect towards perceived weaker groups due to fear of parental punishment.
• Traits of the authoritarian personality - Individuals with this personality type exhibit:
  • Unquestioning obedience to authority.
  • Aggression towards those seen as inferior or of lower status, often minority groups.
  • Conformity to societal norms.
  • Rigid moral beliefs.
• The F-scale measurement - Developed by Adorno et al., the F-scale (where 'F' stands for fascist) is a tool to assess authoritarian traits. Originating post-World War II, it aimed to understand personality factors behind Nazi persecution of minority groups during the 1930s and 1940s.

Evaluation of the authoritarian personality theory

• Supporting research - Elms and Milgram (1966) found that participants scoring higher on the F-scale were more willing to administer higher shocks in Milgram's experiment, linking authoritarian traits to obedience.
• Causation uncertainty - The correlation between authoritarian traits and obedience does not prove causation; other factors like education levels might influence both.
• Situational dominance - Milgram's studies suggest situational factors, such as proximity and location, have a stronger impact on obedience than personality traits.
• Limited societal explanation - The theory fails to explain widespread obedience in entire populations, as not everyone exhibits an authoritarian personality, yet mass compliance can still occur in certain contexts.