Obedience: Videos & Practice Problems

Obedience is a behavioral change in response to authority figures, often observed in uncertain situations. Stanley Milgram's experiments revealed that about 80% of participants continued to administer shocks despite apparent distress from a confederate, highlighting the power of perceived authority. Modifications to the study, such as having the learner in the same room or the experimenter appearing less authoritative, significantly reduced obedience rates. These findings underscore the influence of authority perception on behavior and the ethical implications of obedience in social contexts.

The Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments

Obedience is a behavioral change that occurs in response to the demands of an authority figure, often seen in situations where norms are defined by those in power. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in uncertain or new environments, where individuals look to authority figures for guidance on appropriate behavior. A pivotal exploration of obedience was conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, inspired by the Nazi trials post-World War II, where many perpetrators claimed they were merely following orders. Milgram sought to understand whether such obedience could lead individuals to commit morally reprehensible acts.

In his experiments, participants were assigned the role of a "teacher," while a confederate, posing as another participant, acted as the "learner." The two were separated, with the teacher delivering word pairs to the learner via an intercom. If the learner made a mistake, the teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks using a shock box, which was designed to appear authentic but was actually harmless. The shock levels ranged from slight to intense, culminating in a labeled "XXX" for the highest voltage. As the learner feigned distress, the teacher was urged to continue administering shocks, even as the learner's responses became increasingly desperate and eventually ceased.

The results were striking: approximately 80% of participants continued to deliver shocks even after the learner began to scream, and about 62% administered the maximum voltage. This high level of obedience raised questions about the nature of human behavior under authority. Critics might suggest that the study attracted particularly aggressive individuals; however, the study was framed as a learning and memory experiment, targeting a general population without a predisposition to aggression. Subsequent replications across various demographics and countries have consistently yielded similar results, indicating a robust tendency toward obedience.

While Milgram's findings highlight the power of authority in shaping behavior, it is essential to recognize that obedience is not absolute. Various factors can influence the degree of obedience, which will be explored further in subsequent discussions.

Approximately what percentage of participants in the Milgram obedience study delivered the maximum possible level of shock?

• A. ~25%
• B. ~50%
• C. ~33%
• D. ~60%

Answer: (D)

Factors That Affect Obedience

Obedience is significantly influenced by various situational factors, as demonstrated through modifications to Milgram's original research. One key factor is the physical presence of the learner, or confederate, in the same room as the participant. When participants could see the learner experiencing distress, such as screaming and writhing in pain, their obedience rates decreased. This highlights the impact of confronting the consequences of one's actions on compliance.

Another modification involved changing the setting of the experiment from the prestigious Yale campus to a more generic office building. This shift in environment contributed to a lower perception of authority, which in turn reduced obedience. Additionally, the presence of a second experimenter who disagreed with the first one further diminished obedience rates. For instance, when one experimenter urged the participant to continue while another suggested stopping, the conflicting messages weakened the perceived authority of the situation.

Lastly, a simple yet effective change was having the experimenter not wear a lab coat. The absence of this traditional symbol of authority led to a further decline in obedience. Overall, these modifications illustrate that reducing the perceived authority of the experimenter and forcing participants to confront the harm they may inflict can significantly lower obedience rates. Understanding these factors is crucial in exploring the dynamics of authority and compliance in social psychology.

Example 1

The Milgram study on obedience revealed that modifications to the experimental design could significantly influence participants' willingness to comply with authority figures. One key finding is that when there is disagreement between experimenters, obedience rates decrease. For instance, if one experimenter insists on continuing the experiment while another suggests stopping, participants are less likely to follow orders, reflecting a reduction in perceived authority.

Another factor affecting obedience is the attire of the experimenters. When experimenters wear lab coats, which symbolize authority and professionalism, obedience tends to increase. Conversely, when they remove their lab coats, obedience rates drop, indicating that the visual cues of authority play a crucial role in participants' decisions.

The setting of the experiment also impacts obedience. Conducting the study in a generic office building, as opposed to the prestigious Yale campus, leads to lower obedience rates. This change in environment diminishes the perceived authority of the experiment and the experimenter, further influencing participants' behavior.

Lastly, the separation of the learner from the experimenter does not significantly affect obedience rates. What truly matters is whether the participant, acting as the teacher, can see the learner or confederate. The visibility of the learner is a critical factor in determining the participant's willingness to administer shocks, rather than the experimenter's presence.

Overall, these modifications highlight the importance of perceived authority in influencing obedience, demonstrating how situational factors can alter human behavior in significant ways.

Many modifications have been done to Milgram's original study over the years. Which of the following is a general finding of this research?

• A. People from some cultures do not conform at all.
• B. The more "official" and authoritative the experimenter appears, the less obedient people are.
• C. Decreasing perceived authority of the experimenter leads to lower rates of obedience.
• D. Participants were more motivated to obey authority when the confederate was in the room with them.

Answer: (C)

Here’s what students ask on this topic:

What is obedience in psychology?

Obedience in psychology refers to a change in behavior that occurs in response to a direct order or demand from an authority figure. It is a social influence phenomenon where individuals comply with instructions, often due to the perceived legitimacy or power of the authority figure. This behavior is particularly common in uncertain or unfamiliar situations, where people look to authority figures to define acceptable norms. Stanley Milgram's famous experiments in the 1960s demonstrated the extent of obedience, showing that individuals could follow orders even when it involved actions conflicting with their moral values. Understanding obedience helps us explore the dynamics of authority, conformity, and ethical decision-making in social contexts.

What were the key findings of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments?

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments revealed that a significant majority of participants were willing to follow orders from an authority figure, even when those orders involved harming another person. Specifically, about 80% of participants continued to administer shocks after the learner (a confederate) began showing signs of distress, and 62% delivered the highest voltage labeled as "XXX." These findings highlighted the powerful influence of authority on human behavior. Milgram's study also demonstrated that obedience levels remained consistent across various replications, including diverse populations and settings. The experiments underscored the ethical and psychological implications of obedience, particularly in understanding historical events like the Holocaust.

What factors can decrease obedience in authority-driven situations?

Several factors can decrease obedience in authority-driven situations, as demonstrated by modifications to Milgram's original experiments. These include:

• Proximity to the victim: When the learner (confederate) was in the same room as the participant, obedience rates dropped as participants were forced to confront the harm they were inflicting.
• Setting: Conducting the experiment in a generic office building rather than a prestigious institution like Yale reduced obedience.
• Conflicting authority figures: The presence of a second experimenter who disagreed with the first led to lower obedience rates.
• Authority appearance: When the experimenter did not wear a lab coat, participants perceived them as less authoritative, leading to decreased obedience.

These factors highlight the importance of perceived authority and personal accountability in influencing obedience.

Why is Milgram's obedience study considered controversial?

Milgram's obedience study is considered controversial primarily due to ethical concerns. Participants were subjected to significant psychological stress, believing they were inflicting real harm on another person. Although no physical harm occurred, the emotional distress caused by the experiment raised questions about informed consent and the protection of participants' well-being. Additionally, the deceptive nature of the study—participants were misled about its true purpose—sparked debates about the ethical boundaries of psychological research. Despite these concerns, the study provided valuable insights into human behavior and the influence of authority, prompting the development of stricter ethical guidelines in research.

How has Milgram's obedience study been replicated in modern times?

Milgram's obedience study has been replicated multiple times, including in modern contexts, to test the consistency of its findings. For example, a 2017 replication used updated ethical standards, ensuring participants were fully debriefed and experienced less psychological distress. These replications often involve diverse populations and settings, yet they consistently show similar results: a significant proportion of participants obey authority figures, even when it conflicts with their moral values. Modern replications also explore variations, such as virtual environments, to further understand the factors influencing obedience. These studies confirm the robustness of Milgram's findings while adhering to contemporary ethical guidelines.

What are the ethical implications of obedience studies?

Obedience studies, like Milgram's, raise important ethical implications. They highlight the potential for individuals to follow authority figures even when it leads to harmful actions, emphasizing the need for ethical awareness in hierarchical systems. These studies also underscore the importance of protecting participants in psychological research. Milgram's use of deception and the emotional distress caused to participants have led to stricter ethical guidelines, such as obtaining informed consent, minimizing harm, and providing thorough debriefing. Additionally, these studies prompt discussions about the balance between scientific discovery and the ethical treatment of research subjects, shaping modern research practices.