Understanding obedience in psychology

Obedience refers to a form of social influence where individuals follow direct orders or instructions from an authority figure. This can lead to behaviours that might otherwise be avoided. Stanley Milgram's research explored this phenomenon through a series of experiments, aiming to understand why people might obey harmful commands.

Milgram's work demonstrated how situational factors, such as the presence of authority, can override personal ethics. His studies used controlled laboratory settings to measure obedience levels, providing insights into human behaviour under pressure.

Milgram's original obedience study

Milgram's initial experiment investigated how far people would go in obeying authority when it involved harming another person, testing the conflict between moral standards and authoritative commands.

Aims of the original study

To investigate how obedient participants would be when following orders would mean breaking their moral code and harming another person.

Participants

• 40 adult males, recruited as volunteers through newspaper advertisements.
• They were offered $4 plus 50 cents for travel expenses to participate in what was described as a memory study.
• Participants were unaware of the true purpose.

Procedure

Steps in the original study:

1. Participants arrived and met the experimenter (dressed in a smart grey lab coat) and another supposed volunteer, Mr Wallace, who was actually an actor.
2. A rigged draw assigned the participant as the 'teacher' and Mr Wallace as the 'learner'; the draw ensured the participant always became the teacher.
3. The participant was shown the shock generator, which had 30 switches, each showing a 15-volt increase in shock level.
4. The task involved the teacher administering increasing shocks each time a question was answered incorrectly.
5. The participant could not see the learner but could hear him clearly. The learner's responses were pre-recorded: complaints about a heart condition, demands to be let out at 150 volts, pounding on the wall at 300 and 315 volts, followed by silence.
6. If the teacher hesitated, the experimenter used standardised verbal prods like "Please continue" or "The experiment requires that you continue".
7. The study ended if the participant refused to continue or after reaching 450 volts.

Results

Key findings:

• All 40 participants administered shocks up to at least 300 volts.
• 65% (26 participants) continued to the maximum 450 volts.
• The average maximum shock level was 368 volts.

Distribution of maximum shocks:

• 5 participants stopped at 300 volts.
• 8 stopped between 315 and 360 volts.
• 1 stopped between 375 and 420 volts.
• 26 went to 450 volts.

Conclusions

The study clearly shows the power of authority over behaviour. Even when participants were clearly upset, they still saw no alternative except to obey.

Evaluation

• Strengths - The controlled procedure allowed for clear measurement of obedience, with standardised prods ensuring consistency.
• Limitations - Ethical concerns arose from the distress caused to participants, and the artificial setting might not reflect real-world obedience.

Participants were fully debriefed afterwards, reunited with the learner, and assured their behaviour was normal.

Variation: telephonic instructions and absent experimenter

This variation, known as Experiment 7, tested whether physical proximity to the authority figure influenced obedience. By removing the experimenter's immediate presence, Milgram examined if distance reduced compliance.

Aims

To see if having the experimenter in the room affected the level of obedience, by having the experimenter in touch by phone.

Procedure

• The setup followed the original study, with the same shock generator and learner actor.
• The experimenter provided initial instructions in the room but then left the laboratory.
• All subsequent orders and prods were delivered over the telephone.

Results

• Obedience rates dropped sharply when orders were given by telephone. Instead of 26 obeying, 8 obeyed (20.5 per cent).
• Many participants deceived the experimenter by claiming to increase shocks while actually administering lower levels.

Conclusions

When the experimenter is not face-to-face with the participant, it is easier not to obey. Physical presence was an important force.

Evaluation

• Strengths - This variation isolated the factor of proximity, providing clear evidence of its impact.
• Limitations - Participants' deception suggests the telephone setup may have reduced the perceived legitimacy of the experiment.

Variation: rundown office block and institutional context

In Experiment 10, Milgram altered the setting to test if the prestigious Yale University environment influenced obedience, moving the study to a less impressive location.

Aims

To see if the outcome would be similar if the study took part in a rundown office block and not conducted in Yale University as it was regarded as prestigious. This was as a result of follow-up interviews suggesting that the integrity of the Yale institution had given them the confidence to take part in the study. Milgram suggested that the participants expose their throats in a barber's saloon, but would not anywhere else, so wanted to determine whether the setting would have an influence on obedience rates.

Procedure

• The experiment was relocated to a rundown commercial office building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and all links to Yale University were removed.
• Researchers presented themselves as from a private firm, not a university.
• Participants were recruited similarly, offered $4.50, and followed the same shock administration process as the original.
• The lab remained clean but lacked the academic prestige.

Results

• Participants expressed more doubts about this study. One participant made notes and asked himself a number of questions about the legitimacy of the study. Another participant questioned his own judgement and thought the study was 'heartless'.
• Obedience fell to 47.5% reaching 450 volts, compared to 65% at Yale. Milgram did not think that it was a significant difference.

Conclusions

The idea of having a legitimate setting does seem to be backed by evidence, albeit a barely significant one. Milgram gives the example that people deposit money in prestigious looking banks and seedy ones, so people will obey experiments regardless of where the laboratory is.

Evaluation

• Strengths - Controlled comparison highlighted the role of context in obedience.
• Limitations - The modest drop suggests other factors, like the experimenter's authority, were more dominant.

Variation: ordinary man giving orders

Experiment 13 examined obedience when commands came from someone without apparent authority, replacing the experimenter with an ordinary person.

Aims

To see whether an order given by someone without authority is followed. In particular to see if an order given by an ordinary man, who it is clear holds no authority unlike his predecessor, is carried out.

Procedure

• The experimenter gave the instructions about administering the shock, but then got 'called away' and left the room.
• An accomplice in the room, initially given the task of recording times, suggested increasing shocks for errors and urged continuation.
• If the participant refused, the accomplice offered to swap roles and administer shocks himself.

Results

• The experimenter leaving created an awkward atmosphere, which undermined the credibility of the experiment.
• Only 20% (4 out of 20 participants) obeyed to 450 volts under the ordinary man's instructions.
• 80% (16 participants) refused to continue, breaking away from the suggestions.
• When roles swapped, all 16 bystanders protested; 5 attempted physical intervention, such as disconnecting the generator or physically restraining the accomplice.

Conclusions

Levels of obedience fell dramatically with an ordinary man who had no perceived authority. Participants did not like seeing the 'ordinary man' giving the shocks, but were not able to prevent it.

Evaluation

• Strengths - Demonstrated the importance of legitimate authority in obedience dynamics.
• Limitations - The awkwardness may have undermined the study's realism, affecting results.

Overall conclusions from Milgram's obedience studies

Milgram's research collectively shows that obedience is heavily influenced by situational factors rather than personality alone.

Key insights from the studies:

• Authority's physical presence and perceived legitimacy increase compliance, even to harmful acts.
• Removing these elements, such as through distance or non-authoritative figures, significantly reduces obedience.
• People may obey due to the pressure of the situation, feeling no alternative despite moral distress.

These findings explain real-world phenomena where ordinary individuals follow destructive orders under authority. However, ethical issues in the studies, like participant stress, highlight the need for careful research design.