Psychological Explanation of The Concept of Obedience

This essay aims to outline a psychological explanation of obedience, evaluate Milgram's study of obedience and Asch's study of conformity, then discuss the ethical issues raised in Milgram’s experiment. Also, analyze explanations of leadership and followership.

Obedience is when a person acts based on an order, normally from an authority figure. It is believed that without the order, the individual would not have behaved in the way they did. This is supported by the very well mind (2019) “Obedience is a form of social influence that involves acting on the orders of an authority figure.” Authority figures have power in social situations, for instance, the police having control over justice, doctors within health, and teachers in schools, accordingly the individual issuing the order must be perceived as having the social power to give commands.

Another possible explanation is the existence of buffers that may contribute to making people more likely to obey someone because they are unable to see the direct effects of their actions.

Dispositional explanations can play a factor in obedience, where experiences in early childhood may have a connexion with an authoritarian personality, where they may have had an extremely strict parent or guardian, as a result, the consequences are repressed in the unconscious mind.

An additional factor that can influence obedience, is the agentic state, this is when an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure, for instance, a teacher, doctor, or police officer, and takes no personal responsibility as they see themselves as inferior. This can only be achieved if the person considers that the individual who has given the order has legitimate authority. This is supported by Gale (2015) “People go into a state of the agency and act not on their own volition” In an obedience situation, individuals pass all responsibility for their actions to the authority figures, individuals are in an autonomous state when they are taking responsibility for their own actions but they move into an agentic state when they pass this responsibility to the authority figure the shift from an autonomous state to an agentic state is called the agentic shift.

There are many situational reasons for obedience, graduated commitment is one, where people commit to performing an act of obedience this tends to begin with agreeing to a small demand and then you slowly become committed and find it difficult to refuse more serious requests.

Uniforms can also increase obedience as uniforms represent authority. This is supported by Academia (2020) “Throughout history the uniform has been used as a symbol of authority. In the armed forces, uniforms are of great importance in signifying relative power.' This can also be due to children been socialized from childhood to embrace the structure of society, where it is instilled in them in the home and in school where they are taught to maintain obedience. This will then nurture a cycle so that you respect anyone with authority which is known as the agentic state.

Milgram conducted a study of obedience to mirror the atrocities against the Jews, in Germany in WWII. He wanted to explore why Germans were notably compliant to people in positions of authority, as this was thought to be a plausible explanation for the World War II mass murders by the Nazis. In his research, Stanley Milgram recruited 40 male individuals to take part in a study of learning at Yale University by newspaper ads. Milgram became fascinated in exploring how extreme individuals might go in pursuing an order if it meant hurting anyone else. Stanley Milgram was concerned with how quickly average citizens can be motivated to commit crimes.

The basis of the experiment would be for the participant to be matched with another individual and they picked from straws to figure out of the two who was to be the' learner' and who was to become the teacher.' The draw was designed so that the participant was always the teacher and the learner was one of the actors hired by Milgram the 'experimenter' disguised in a lab coat was also played by an actor to fully stimulate the environment for the placebo effect.

The learner (actor) was tied to a chair with a variable electric current. Upon studying a series of word pairs that he is offered to understand, the teacher reviews him by choosing a term and telling the learner to identify the pairs from a set of four possible options. Every time the learner makes a mistake the teacher was instructed to deliver an electrical shock, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches marked from slight shock to a severe shock on the shock machine. This is supported by simply psychology(2017) “The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).”

Milgram’s study utilized mundane realism as only male participants were selected this was similar to the stipulations of the recruitment for soldiers by the German army. Furthermore, Milgram also used the draw to contribute to making it emulate real conditions so that the participant would feel that it was by chance that they were in the position of the teacher, whereas in reality the draw was manipulated. Additionally, Milgram used the illusion of an authoritarian figure through the experimenter wearing a uniform. This would have made the participant feel confident in administering electric shocks as they would have believed that the experimenter was a knowledgeable specialist and In an obedience situation, individuals pass all responsibility for their actions to the authority figures, individuals are in an autonomous state when they are taking responsibility for their own actions but they move into an agentic state when they pass this responsibility to the authority figure, this is supported by Atlantic (2015) “Until they emerged from the lab, the participants didn’t know that the shocks weren’t real, that the cries of pain were pre-recorded, and that the learner—railroad auditor Jim McDonough—was in on the whole thing, sitting alive and unharmed in the next room. They were also unaware that they had just been used to prove the claim that would soon make Milgram famous: that ordinary people, under the direction of an authority figure, would obey just about any order they were given, even to torture.” There was also a good internal validity as the cause and effect could be directly measured without any extraneous variables. However, the ecological validity for this experiment was fairly inadequate as the individuals completed a task that was not likely to be repeated in day-to-day life. Participants also knew they were part of an experiment even if they weren’t accurately informed on what type of experiment and the fact that the experiment was only tested for one form of obedience further highlights the drawback of the experiment. Moreover, this was also an ethical issue as participants were unaware of what they were being tested for and may have displayed demand characteristics as they were being compensated financially for participating

Conformity is when an individual change their behavior to choose an action that is favored by the majority of considered socially acceptable. Many individuals tend to conform to appear likable or similar to their peers. This is supported by psychology (2020) “Conformity is the tendency for an individual to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of the people around them. Conformity can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler, unconscious influence. Regardless of its form, it can be a powerful force—able to change how large groups behave,”

Solomon Asch carried out an investigation to examine the effects of group pressure on individuals in an unambiguous situation he recruited Individual male students to participate in the experiment and put the participant in a classroom with 7 confederates who were part of the experiment working with Asch. He was deceived as he thought it was a vision test, in actual fact, it was a study to see if the individual would conform to the same answer as his peers.

The study was conducted with 37 participants for a control scenario. This involved having each participant offer their answers to the vision test with only the experimenter in the room no confederates. This ensured that the results of the test were reliable as there was good internal validity and that the only variable for the real experiment was the influence of the confederates. This is supported by the Very well mind(2019) “The study also included 37 participants in a control condition. This involved having each participant give their response to the line task with only the experimenter in the room and no group of confederates.” Furthermore, Asch’s study also utilized mundane realism as the experiment occurred in a college stimulating a real-life environment. In addition to this, the study is ecologically valid as the experiment mirrored situations that may occur in day-to-day events such as in schools and the effects peer pressure may have on a student. Despite this Asch’s study cannot be generalized to the majority of the population as the experiments targeted subjects consisted only of teen males. Another shortcoming of this experiment was that the individuals were not informed on what they were being tested for, but this may have been done to ensure that participants do not deliberately change their behavior this is supported by Cardwell, M. (2003). “deception was the norm--it was considered normal practice by researchers to give a `cover story' so that participants would not change their behavior to suit the requirements of the experiment. In Asch's research, the participants clearly did not know they were being tricked, nor did they know that the other `participants' were actually confederates of the experimenter.”

Ethical issues raised by Milgram’s study was that informed consent was not gained in the experiment, participants should have been told enough to enable them to agree to take part as they were unaware of the true purpose of the experiment so, due to this they were unable to give informed consent, on the other hand sometimes deception is necessary, participants shouldn’t be lied to but research would be pointless if participants knew the point of the research. Participants were led to believe that they administered an innocent person with a painful electric shock when in fact the shocks did not take place as it was a planned performance and the learner was an actor. The participants suffered psychological stress which was demonstrated by most participants this suggested that the participants believed the study was true, and that a sample shock had also been given to the participant (teacher) before starting the experiment, which could have made the situation more plausible. This is supported by simply psychology (2017) “ The learner(actor) asked “whether it will affect my heart condition” and was told that it is painful but not dangerous. So, the participant (teacher) could have assumed that it's just going to be uncomfortable, but not life-threatening, so this made them continue as they were just obeying orders. Participants have the right to withdraw from any study at any time. But Milgram’s participant (teacher) was instructed to continue and that he never had any other choice. This may mean that the sample was biased, the participants would have felt obliged to cooperate as they were paid to partake in the study. This is further supported by the results of the experiment as participants often trembled stuttered and sweated and had seizures this showed that they were not comfortable executing the orders, there is a possible chance of long term psychological harm of learning as they were willing to give potential fatal shocks to another person. This is supported by simply psychology (2017) “ Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many of the participants were visibly distressed.

Signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously, biting lips, and digging fingernails into palms of hands. Three participants had uncontrollable seizures, and many pleaded to be allowed to stop the experiment.” The participants may have felt controlled and manipulated when they learned the true nature of the experiment and how they had been deceived but without conducting the research you would not be able to know how they are feeling. Participants have a legal right to confidentiality

Leadership is a procedure where one individual strongly influences others towards the accomplishment of collective objectives. This is supported by balance (2020) “leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act toward achieving a common goal.” Authoritarian leadership is also known as autocratic these leaders establish clear goals about what should be achieved, how it should be achieved, and how it will be accomplished. For instance, the leader orders and ensures that followers are deeply motivated on following the leader’s style. However, there is a strong divide between the members and the authoritarian leaders who make the majority of the decisions in the group with slight or no involvement from the members.

Some people naturally possess the ability to lead others they have traits and qualities that they are born with which can aid them into leadership roles. This is known as the trait theory which is a reductionist approach and is also due to nature, this is supported by Missouri (2020) “The theory identifies the specific personality traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. It is based on the premise that leaders are “born, not made,” rather than being developed through learning. This theory also focuses on characteristics that are linked to successful leadership across a variety of situations. They strive to believe that it is almost entirely on innate traits.” This does not mean that leadership roles are strictly limited to these types of people as this theory does not account for other factors such as education or upbringing. Others can learn to become leaders by improving their technical, human, and conceptual skills this is known as the skills theory where skills are developed and comes under the classification of nurture. This is supported by Missouri (2020) “Understanding behavior, group dynamics, motives, attitudes, and feelings of that individual are the main characteristics of good human skills. To achieve goals in an organization, one must know how to adapt to their peers, supervisors, as well as subordinates These skills give a leader the understanding of how to influence a team and/or group members to work effectively to accomplish goals and objectives within the organization. Human skills proficiency enables a leader to know how to monitor their thoughts and feelings within an organization to correlate with others in productivity.” It is also accepted by the skills theory, that to become a leader it is necessary to become a follower first, unlike the simplistic trait theory which does not recognize this factor.

Another theory that focuses on leadership is the style theory, this is not about who the leaders are, but rather about what they do. It concentrates on task trait and skill theories and have ideas that can be linked and compared to each other, the style theory varies rather significantly, as Instead of focusing on who leaders are or what abilities they possess, were born with, or skills they acquired, Style Leadership concentrates instead on what the leader achieves. This is supported by Missouri (2020) “style Leadership theory does not focus on who leaders are, but rather on what they do. It focuses on task and relationship behaviors (Burkus 2015). Although trait and skill theories have ideas that can be intertwined and can be compared to one another, style leadership theory differs quite drastically. Instead of focusing on who leaders are or what qualities they possess, were born with, or skills they acquired, Style Leadership instead focuses on what they actually do/did. Style Leadership refers to behavior and action”

Followership is an integral part of how a leader is viewed as they are responsible for executing orders set by the leader. the actions of an individual in a subservient role affect how the leader may be viewed. Followers are also regarded as a fundamental element of social hierarchy, a social structure that is integral to the leadership process, as a leader will only be as good as his followers as they are responsible for implementing the leader's ideas and will only be successful if they display followership. This is supported by Marriam webster(2020) “the capacity or willingness to follow a leader”.