Obedience is the process by which individuals comply with the instructions given by an authority figure not to be confused with conformity. There is one similarity between obedience and conformity which is that both involved a renunciation
Of personal responsibility. There is three differences between Obedience and Conformity. The first one is that in Obedience an order or an instruction is given whereas no instructions or order is given in conformity. The second one is that in obedience there will be a difference of status e.g : a doctor and a nurse whereas in conformity the group followed will have the same equal status. And the last one is that in obedience it is about status and power whereas in conformity it is a need of being loved or accepted.
In order to understand what is Obedience lets have a look at MILGRAM study.
In 1963 MILGRAM had a study on obedience. The aim of his experiment was to find out if the cause German Nazi was the results of a certain German personality and to see how far people would able to go by following orders given by a laboratory technician.
His experiment consisted on recruiting forty male participants in the range of twenty to fifty years old. Participants were told that they were taking part in an experiment investigating the effects that will be involved when punishment is given while learning. All participants were asked to give electric shocks for every wrong answers by an electric shock generator. Here Obedience was performed by a laboratory technician.
The findings of MILGRAM experiment were that all the participants gave all the way up to three hundreds volts however sixty-five percent of the participants went all the way up to four hundreds and fifty volts even though t...
... middle of paper ...
...ad a lack in both experimental realism which is the extent the situation forces the participants to take the experiment seriously and mundane realism which is the ecological extent validity to which the study compare to real life.
HOFLING ET AL(1966) had a similar study on Obedience but this time the study were with nurses. What they did was that they arranged for a participant (nurse) to receive a phone call from a doctor that they didn’t know. That doctor asked the nurse to administrate twenty milligrams of Astrogen to a patient so that that drug would have taken its effect before he arrives. If the participant (nurse) had followed the order given by the doctor, she would been breaking several hospital rules.
On ninety-five percent of the case, participants (nurses) started administrate the drug until they were stopped by a nurse strategically placed nearby.
As Whitbourne states, "if participants want to discontinue their involvement in the study, they must be allowed to do so without any penalty or question" (Whitbourne). Milgram claims that all of the subjects were permitted to leave at any time; however, the experimenter displays an acknowledgeable amount of persistence towards the subject in continuing the experiment, insisting that “it’s absolutely essential” that they continue and that they “have no choice” but to stay in the experiment (Milgram 80-81). Baumrind insists that Milgram’s experimental design was degrading and emotionally harming to its subjects (Baumrind 92-93). Peter C. Baker, author of “Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram 's Famous Obedience Experiments Prove Anything?,” claims that most humans tend to obey when they hear commands from an authority figure (Baker). Due to the fact that every subject in Milgram’s experiment volunteered to particpate, it can be assumed that the majority of the subjects held trust for their experimenter, who, in Milgram’s experiment, is the authority figure (Baumrind 93). As Baumrind mentions, Milgram’s experiment had the potential of causing participants of the experiment to have distrust toward other adult authorities in the future after realizing that they had been deceived and practically denied of their right to discontinue their participation in the study
The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on learning. The learner was strapped into a chair that resembles a miniature electric chair, and was told he would have to learn a small list of word pairs. For each incorrect answer he would be given electric shocks of increasing intensity ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The experimenter informed the teacher's job was to administer the shocks. The...
The learner is actually an actor who is strapped to a harmless electric chair. He is told several pairs of words, and must remember and repeat these pairings with the make-believe fear of being electrocuted for incorrect answers. The foretold outcome or this experiment was expressed by several people who are familiar with behavioral sciences. They predicted that the majority of subjects would not pass 150 volts, and that a few crazed lunatics would reach the maximum voltage.
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and were taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually shocked, the teachers believed they were inflicting real harm on these innocent people.... ... middle of paper ...
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
Compliance is “a form of social influence involving direct requests from one person to another”, whilst obedience is “a form of social influence in which one person simply orders one or more others to perform some actions” (Baron, R.A. & Branscombe, N.R., 2014, p. 255). These two terms are methods of social influence, particularly prominent in Milgram’s study on obedience. Milgram’s study is a psychological experiment focusing on whether or not people would obey authority figures, even when the instructions given were morally wrong. Back then the terms of the experiment were completely acceptable, but due to the strict controls of contemporary psychology today, this test would be impossible to repeat. The trial breaches many ethical factors as the participant (teacher) is essentially forced to administer electric shocks every time the learner makes a mistake.
In finding that people are not naturally aggressive. Milgram now alters the experiment to find out why do people act the way they do. He compiled the experiment to answer, why do people obey authority, even when the actions are against their own morals.
To further inform the reader using the logical appeal, Meyer gives the estimated results by both the experimenter and fourteen Yale psychology majors. These hypotheses predicted a typical "bell curve" in which a few subjects would cease in the beginning, most would break off somewhere in the middle, and very few would go to the max voltage of shock.
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a Yale University Psychologist conducted a variety of social psychology experiments on obedience to authority figures. His experiments involved three individuals, one of them was a volunteer who played the role of the teacher, one was an actor who played the role of the student, and one was the experimenter who played the role of the authority. The teacher was instructed by the authority to administrate shocks to the student (who claimed to have a heart condition) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The voltage of the shock would go up after every wrong answer. The experimenter would then instruct the teacher to administrate higher voltages even though pain was being imposed. The teacher would then have to make a choice between his morals and values or the choice of the authority figure. The point of the experiment was to try to comprehend just how far an individual would continue when being ordered by an individual in a trench coat to electrically shock another human being for getting questions incorrect. The experiment consisted of administrating pain to different people and proved that ordinary people will obey people with authority. Some of the various reasons are that the experimenter was wearing a trench coat, fear of the consequences for not cooperating, the experiments were conducted in Yale University a place of prestige, and the authority f...
Obedience may be a simple word, yet it has a powerful impact on the daily lives of millions. Obedience is simply when one follows the orders or directions of another figure, presumably in an authoritative position. This is something nearly everyone bows to everyday without even realizing it - and it can drastically change our lives as we know it. Obedience is, for example, how the holocaust happened. The Germans were ordinary people turned into murderers because they followed the orders of one man - their dictator, Adolf Hitler. Of course, obedience does not always result in horrid results such as the holocaust or result in such a large catastrophe. Obedience can have drastic effects on the lives of only a few men as well; this is showcased in the movie A Few Good Men.
Vol. 64 (1), pp. 12-18, 2009. Milgram, Stanley. A. Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind.
Obedience is thought to be a high moral standard which we are to follow. On the other hand, disobedience is considered a moral flaw, wrongness, or something you just should not do. When your mother says that you can’t eat cookies for dinner, how likely are you to listen? This is an act of disobedience.