Understanding Obedience in Psychology

In this video we're starting to look at some of the content of social psychology, particularly obedience. You need to understand the psychological definition of obedience, discuss the positive and negative effects of obedience, understand the real life context from which obedience was born, and describe and evaluate Milgram's agency theory of obedience. So the psychological definition for obedience is complying with the rules set by a recognised authority, which may impose sanctions for obedience. It is where the individual gives up their free will, hands it over to an authority figure by doing exactly what they say, even if they don't believe what they're doing is correct. Now quite often following the orders can be a good thing. If you think about a driver obeying a road sign, it prevents an accident from happening. So actually being obedient to an authority figure can actually be a positive within society. However, there are often aspects where this can be a downside. If we look at destructive obedience, for example, this is when we're doing something because we're acting as an agent, we're following that authority figure, but it's something immoral, it's something that will harm another person. So obedience is following the direct orders of a person in the authority, but destructive obedience is following these orders that can lead to the harm of another person. Now, Milgram was very interested in destructive obedience because a lot of his research grew from the Holocaust and from the atrocities that happened within the Holocaust. Now, he actually attempted to prove at the beginning that German culture was just different. There was something about German culture that raised people to obey, to be agents of authority figures. And he wanted to test this idea that these German people were different. But he quickly found, actually, that people in general were surprisingly obedient to authority. Now part of Milgram's agency theory suggests that there are two states and two ways of acting. So the first one is an autonomous state. Now in an autonomous state, the person, the participants, will direct their own behaviour. They choose how they want to act. They don't follow an authority figure and they take responsibility for their own actions at all times. Now the second state is an agentic state. Now this involves when somebody does obey an authority figure. When they act as an agent for society they obey the orders of an authority figure. However importantly they assume that the responsibility for that behavior or for those actions falls to the authority figure and thus don't take any responsibility themselves. Now Milgram would suggest that we act agentically in a situation or a social role because it seems that society demands that from us. If we look at this as just a summary to help you to conclude, autonomous state is when somebody acts independently, they're self-controlled, they take responsibility for their own actions, they follow their free will and their moral compass and they have a conscience. Now, agentic state is quite the opposite. The authority figure takes the responsibility. You would say that in an agentic state, someone is being controlled. They are an agent of that authority figure because they're doing... Now Milgram discusses why this happens and this is just an important part of the theories as naming and describing the two states. Milgram suggests that we are socialised in developing the capacity for the agentic state during childhood so we are taught by society that it's important that we obey. This is then reinforced in school in favour of maintaining order. In school you are taught you have to obey the teachers, the teachers are the authority figures, the teachers are in the uniform and you have to obey them in order to be able to learn and to keep the classroom safe. Now like children in the classroom we are all constantly subordinating our needs and wishes in society and we're doing that in order to be able to help society progress. So even at work as adults people will identify themselves as part of an organisation and will actually put the needs of the employers and of the company often before the needs of their own. Now the consequences for this obedience particularly within the agentic state is something called moral strain. Now moral strain, Milgram says, results when we have to do something that we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority and therefore benefit society. Now Milgram suggests that in order to deal with moral strain, we will use defence mechanisms to avoid that distress of us accepting that we've taken part in that action or we've broken our morals. Now an often one for this is denial, in which people will deny that it was their fault or that they had anything to do with it. If we think about the cases that we've learnt about Adolf Eichmann, he... refused to take responsibility for his actions in the crime, he denied that they were his fault. Now this is quite similar in participants in Milgram studies as well and in the Holocaust as perpetrators refused to confront what they were doing. Now when we look at evaluating agency theory of obedience it is so so important that you remember that agency theory is a theory, it's not a study. So I suggest we use a process called SCOUT in order to help us to evaluate this. Now The S stands for supporting evidence. Are there any studies that do support what agency theory says? C is conflicting evidence. Is there anything that disagrees with agency theory? Any studies or evidence we can call on there? O is other explanations. Are there any different theories of obedience that agency theory differs from? Usefulness within society. This is very similar to the application one that we look at within a study. And then testability. How likely or available is it that we can test this study? theory to see if it's correct. Okay, so let's look through the evaluation then. So, a strength of agency theory is that it helps us to understand some of the most horrific behaviour that has happened in the world. For example, we keep talking about the example of the Holocaust, in which the German soldiers were in a genetic state when they obeyed their commanding officers because they saw them as an authority figure, and therefore, as a result, they murdered thousands of Jewish people. Agency theory explains and supports Milgram's 1963 study and the variations in which people do obey the destructive orders, they commit destructive obedience in the sense of they harm somebody else but they as a result will suffer stress from this. Such as in Milgram's study a lot of the participants were nervously laughing, they were having fits, they couldn't cope with what was going on. There's a lot of supporting evidence for agency theory. One that I've named and mentioned here is Blass in 1996, who showed students the edited film of Milgram's study and questioned their responsibility. Now, a student suggested that Milgram took on the role of the authority figure, and this supports agency theory because the participants were seen as being in an agentic state, and therefore they weren't to blame for their actions. Obviously Milgram's own research supports his theory as well and Berger's replication in 2009, which we look at as the contemporary study, still supports this idea of agency theory today. Hoffling, another famous study where Hoffling had a doctor phone a hospital and over the phone gave a nurse destructive orders, so orders to administer... an overdose or a deadly dose of a drug to a patient and Hoffling wanted to see whether the nurses would obey the doctor as an authority figure even when the instruction was over the phone which was clearly against protocol and actually they did so Hoffling's research supports this as well. There's also support from Bushman 1988 who found that when a request was made to give a motorist change for a parking meter it was much more likely to be followed if the person requesting it had a uniform on so they look like an authority figure. However, there are obviously weaknesses of agency theory. The first being that there are a lot of alternative theories of obedience, so other explanations, such as charismatic leadership theory, because this suggests that some people are just very charismatic, they are particularly skilled at gaining obedience, regardless of their position, of their authority figure. Agency theory doesn't explain individual differences either. We've talked about Gretchen Brandt who was a participant within Milgram's original study who refused from the very beginning to take part in the study saying that she'd seen too much pain, too much murder within the Holocaust and within World War II and she refused to take part. Milgram doesn't explain this. Now on the screen at the moment are some exam questions that I really strongly recommend that you practice ready for your exam if you just want to pause the video and have a go at some of these. and review your knowledge of agency theory.

It is where the individual gives up their free will, hands it over to an authority figure by doing exactly what they say, even if they don't believe what they're doing is correct. Now quite often following the orders can be a good thing. If you think about a driver obeying a road sign, it prevents an accident from happening. So actually being obedient to an authority figure can actually be a positive within society.

However, there are often aspects where this can be a downside. If we look at destructive obedience, for example, this is when we're doing something because we're acting as an agent, we're following that authority figure, but it's something immoral, it's something that will harm another person. So obedience is following the direct orders of a person in the authority, but destructive obedience is following these orders that can lead to the harm of another person.

Now, Milgram was very interested in destructive obedience because a lot of his research grew from the Holocaust and from the atrocities that happened within the Holocaust. Now, he actually attempted to prove at the beginning that German culture was just different. There was something about German culture that raised people to obey, to be agents of authority figures. And he wanted to test this idea that these German people were different.

But he quickly found, actually, that people in general were surprisingly obedient to authority. Now part of Milgram's agency theory suggests that there are two states and two ways of acting. So the first one is an autonomous state. Now in an autonomous state, the person, the participants, will direct their own behaviour.

They choose how they want to act. They don't follow an authority figure and they take responsibility for their own actions at all times. Now the second state is an agentic state. Now this involves when somebody does obey an authority figure.

When they act as an agent for society they obey the orders of an authority figure. However importantly they assume that the responsibility for that behavior or for those actions falls to the authority figure and thus don't take any responsibility themselves. Now Milgram would suggest that we act agentically in a situation or a social role because it seems that society demands that from us.

If we look at this as just a summary to help you to conclude, autonomous state is when somebody acts independently, they're self-controlled, they take responsibility for their own actions, they follow their free will and their moral compass and they have a conscience. Now, agentic state is quite the opposite. The authority figure takes the responsibility. You would say that in an agentic state, someone is being controlled. They are an agent of that authority figure because they're doing...

Now Milgram discusses why this happens and this is just an important part of the theories as naming and describing the two states. Milgram suggests that we are socialised in developing the capacity for the agentic state during childhood so we are taught by society that it's important that we obey. This is then reinforced in school in favour of maintaining order.

In school you are taught you have to obey the teachers, the teachers are the authority figures, the teachers are in the uniform and you have to obey them in order to be able to learn and to keep the classroom safe. Now like children in the classroom we are all constantly subordinating our needs and wishes in society and we're doing that in order to be able to help society progress. So even at work as adults people will identify themselves as part of an organisation and will actually put the needs of the employers and of the company often before the needs of their own. Now the consequences for this obedience particularly within the agentic state is something called moral strain.

Now moral strain, Milgram says, results when we have to do something that we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority and therefore benefit society. Now Milgram suggests that in order to deal with moral strain, we will use defence mechanisms to avoid that distress of us accepting that we've taken part in that action or we've broken our morals. Now an often one for this is denial, in which people will deny that it was their fault or that they had anything to do with it.

If we think about the cases that we've learnt about Adolf Eichmann, he... refused to take responsibility for his actions in the crime, he denied that they were his fault. Now this is quite similar in participants in Milgram studies as well and in the Holocaust as perpetrators refused to confront what they were doing. Now when we look at evaluating agency theory of obedience it is so so important that you remember that agency theory is a theory, it's not a study.

So I suggest we use a process called SCOUT in order to help us to evaluate this. Now The S stands for supporting evidence. Are there any studies that do support what agency theory says? C is conflicting evidence.

Is there anything that disagrees with agency theory? Any studies or evidence we can call on there? O is other explanations. Are there any different theories of obedience that agency theory differs from?

Usefulness within society. This is very similar to the application one that we look at within a study. And then testability.

How likely or available is it that we can test this study? theory to see if it's correct. Okay, so let's look through the evaluation then. So, a strength of agency theory is that it helps us to understand some of the most horrific behaviour that has happened in the world. For example, we keep talking about the example of the Holocaust, in which the German soldiers were in a genetic state when they obeyed their commanding officers because they saw them as an authority figure, and therefore, as a result, they murdered thousands of Jewish people.

Agency theory explains and supports Milgram's 1963 study and the variations in which people do obey the destructive orders, they commit destructive obedience in the sense of they harm somebody else but they as a result will suffer stress from this. Such as in Milgram's study a lot of the participants were nervously laughing, they were having fits, they couldn't cope with what was going on. There's a lot of supporting evidence for agency theory.

One that I've named and mentioned here is Blass in 1996, who showed students the edited film of Milgram's study and questioned their responsibility. Now, a student suggested that Milgram took on the role of the authority figure, and this supports agency theory because the participants were seen as being in an agentic state, and therefore they weren't to blame for their actions. Obviously Milgram's own research supports his theory as well and Berger's replication in 2009, which we look at as the contemporary study, still supports this idea of agency theory today.

Hoffling, another famous study where Hoffling had a doctor phone a hospital and over the phone gave a nurse destructive orders, so orders to administer... an overdose or a deadly dose of a drug to a patient and Hoffling wanted to see whether the nurses would obey the doctor as an authority figure even when the instruction was over the phone which was clearly against protocol and actually they did so Hoffling's research supports this as well. There's also support from Bushman 1988 who found that when a request was made to give a motorist change for a parking meter it was much more likely to be followed if the person requesting it had a uniform on so they look like an authority figure. However, there are obviously weaknesses of agency theory.

The first being that there are a lot of alternative theories of obedience, so other explanations, such as charismatic leadership theory, because this suggests that some people are just very charismatic, they are particularly skilled at gaining obedience, regardless of their position, of their authority figure. Agency theory doesn't explain individual differences either. We've talked about Gretchen Brandt who was a participant within Milgram's original study who refused from the very beginning to take part in the study saying that she'd seen too much pain, too much murder within the Holocaust and within World War II and she refused to take part.

Milgram doesn't explain this. Now on the screen at the moment are some exam questions that I really strongly recommend that you practice ready for your exam if you just want to pause the video and have a go at some of these. and review your knowledge of agency theory.

Transcript for:Understanding Obedience in Psychology

Transcript for:
Understanding Obedience in Psychology