Obedience and conformity

Ethical Issues

44

• Ethical Guidelines

•Confidentiality

•Debriefing

•Informed consent procedures

•Use of deception in research

•Voluntary participation

•Withdrawal rights

The term ethics refers to standards that guide individuals to identify

good, desirable or acceptable conduct. Essentially, ethical standards

help us to make moral judgments about what is right (or acceptable) and

what is wrong (or unacceptable).

•Beneficence

•Integrity

•Justice

•Non-maleficence

•Respect

What is…?

45

When do you have to obey?

46

Obedience

Obedience occurs when we follow the commands of

someone with authority, or the rules or laws of our society.

The term is sometimes used interchangeably with the term

compliance.

• However, while compliance involves changing one’s behaviour in

response to a request to do so, it does not necessarily involve an

authority figure. We may submit to the demands, wishes, or

suggestions of someone without authority, such as a friend or sibling.

Psychologists also distinguish between constructive and

destructive obedience

• Constructive obedience occurs when there is compliance with the

orders of an authority that results in a positive outcome. Examples

include accident victims obeying the commands of emergency

personnel, and citizens adhering to laws within their communities,

which reduces crime and makes neighbourhoods safer, thus instilling

a sense of security and well-being for individuals living within those

neighbourhoods.

• Destructive obedience occurs when there is compliance with the

orders of an authority that results in a negative outcome. Examples

include soldiers obeying orders to harm innocent civilians and nurses

or other medical personnel following a doctor’s orders even when

they know the doctor is mistaken (APA, 2022).

47

Milgram’s Experiment on obedience

48

49

50

Milgram’s Experiment

Activity 7.9

51

Milgram’s Experiment – Australian version

Activity 7.10

52

53

Factors that affect obedience

Social

proximity

Legitimacy
of authority

figures

Group

pressure

54

•Milgram’s original experiment on obedience to an authority figure used a sample made up entirely of adult male participants. In

subsequent experiments, Milgram (1974) tested the effect of other variables on obedience.

•For example, in another study, 40 adult females showed the same level of obedience as did the males

•— 65% delivered an electric shock to the maximum intensity of 450 volts.

•Similar results have also been obtained in different countries throughout the world using people from different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds,

including children and elderly people in the role of the teacher.

•Most participants expressed considerable distress over what they were asked to do, yet most also continued to obey.

•Obedience in a ‘Milgram-type’ experimental situation seems to occur regardless of gender, socioeconomic background,

age or culture.

•Does this mean you would be likely to obey an authority figure to deliver 450 volts that could kill somebody?

•The answer is ‘Not necessarily’.

•It appears that several factors interact in influencing someone to obey an authority figure.

•These include the physical distance between the authority figure and the person who must obey, whether the authority

figure is perceived as being legitimate and having power, and group pressure to obey.

Factors that affect obedience

55

• Generally, the term social proximity refers to the closeness between two or more people. This may

include the physical distance between the people as well as the closeness of their relationship.

• In Milgram’s experiment, social proximity was operationalised as the physical distance between the teacher

and learner, including whether or not the teacher is physically present in the same room as the learner.

• Milgram found that, the closer the learner (‘victim’) was to the teacher (person administering the shock), the

more likely that person was to refuse to administer the shock.

•For example when the teacher was in the same room with the learner and standing only 45–50 cm away, the number of fully

obedient teachers dropped from 65% to 40%. And when the teacher was required to force the learner’s hand down into contact

with a simulated ‘shock plate’, the number of fully obedient teachers dropped to 30%. Milgram also found that when the teacher

was out of the room and issued their orders by telephone, the number of fully obedient teachers dropped to about 20%.

• Furthermore, in this experimental condition, the experimenter’s authority was frequently defied.

• For example, several of the teachers administered shocks of lower intensity than they were supposed to and never

told the experimenter that they were doing this

Factors that affect obedience

56

•An individual is also more likely to be obedient when the authority figure is perceived as being legitimate and having power.

•When an ‘ordinary person’ (someone with no particular authority) instead of the experimenter gave the orders, full obedience

dropped from 65% to 20%.

•In one variation of his experiment, Milgram (1974) set up a situation in which the experimenter received a fake telephone call that

required him to leave the laboratory.

•After the experimenter left, another confederate who was posing as a participant entered the room and took charge.

•He ‘decided’ that the shock should be increased one level for each wrong answer and ordered the teacher to follow this command. With the legitimate

authority figure gone and someone with no apparent authority in charge, 80% of the teachers often ignored the confederate and refused to comply

fully.

•When the confederate pretended to be disgusted by this defiance and sat down in front of the shock generator and tried to deliver the shock himself,

most of the defiant participants protested vigorously. Some even tried to unplug the shock generator so it could not be used. In one instance, a

physically big teacher actually picked up the confederate from his chair in front of the shock generator and threw him across the room. This ‘rebellion’

against an illegitimate authority figure contrasted sharply with the compliance usually shown to the ‘authoritative’ experimenter.

Legitimacy of authority figures

57

•In Milgram’s (1963) original experiment, the authority figures were easy to recognise because all the experimenters wore white lab coats.

•They looked like ‘expert scientists from a prestigious university’ and this helped reinforce the legitimacy of their authority in the experimental

situation. In everyday life, individuals in authority also tend to have visible signs of their authority.

•Police officers, PSOs, paramedics, firefighters, parking officers and security guards all wear uniforms. Politicians wear suits. Doctors in hospitals

wear stethoscopes around their necks.

•These symbols of their authority are often enough to bring about obedience. When confronted by these obvious signs and reminders of who is in

charge, many people find it difficult to resist

Legitimacy of authority figures

58

Summarise the finding below

59

•An individual is also more likely to be obedient where there is little or no group support for resisting the authority figure.

•When the ‘teachers’ were exposed to the actions of disobedient people who refused to obey the authority figure’s commands, full obedience

dropped from 65% to about 10%.

•We are more likely to obey an authority figure when we perceive them as having legitimate authority.

• A uniform provides a readily visible sign of someone’s authority in most places throughout the world. Milgram observed this effect of group

pressure by placing the teacher with two confederate teachers. Initially, the two confederates pretended to collaborate by agreeing to follow the shock

administration procedure. Then, they pretended to defy the experimenter and refused to administer shocks after the 150-volt to 210-volt range.

Group Pressure

60

•After the participant observed disobedience, the confederates turned to the participant and ordered them to administer the shock. Almost 90%

refused to do so. The results also indicate that an individual is more likely to be obedient where there is group support for the authority

figure. When the teachers were exposed to the actions of two people who consistently obeyed the authority figure’s commands to the end,

full obedience increased from 65% to 72.5%.

•In Milgram’s study, participants were faced with the dilemma of whether to obey an authority figure or consider the health and safety of

another human being. Obedience to authority was the more common response. Milgram’s study demonstrates how strong social influence is in

affecting individuals’ behaviours. Individuals will often rationalise, or justify, their behaviour by offering the excuse that they cannot be held

responsible for their actions because they are acting under instructions.

•Experiments such as those conducted by Milgram provide an interesting and important insight into human behaviour. We are often confronted with

situations where we have to decide whether to do what others are expecting or demanding from us, or take a stand against their expectations or

demands. However, you should keep in mind that the Milgram experiments provide an example of authority being abused.

•Without obedience to the laws of our democratic society, groups could not function and social life in the way we are accustomed to it would be

extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Group Pressure

Factors affecting Obedience

Activity 7.11

61