Category: Obedience

The main factor that influences obedience is ‘situation’. There are some other less significant factors which when combined, make obedience more likely. The situation can present obstacles to ethical decision-making. The current evidenced influential factors are nuanced and complex. There has been vast psychological research and literature since World War II on obedience, which will be analyzed and evaluated below.

Obedience

Obedience is to comply with an order from a person of higher status in a perceived hierarchy it is not conformity; to go along with a group, nor is it compliance, to change behavior upon request (Hewstone et al., 2014). The key element with obedience is the authority figure and that the action may be at odds with an individual’s morals. Research suggests that situation is the significant influence on obedience, the implication being, that all humans are capable of obedience when placed in a situation which meets the criteria. This was explored by the psychologist, Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. He devised an experiment, with the Holocaust as his reference point that helps us identify the factors in a situation that make people obey, even where they disagree (Porter, 2020). Milgram’s studies have been critiqued and replicated showing consistent results for situational factors (Dolinski, 2017) and are described as the greatest contribution to human knowledge and social psychology despite its flaws and ethical issues. This will be examined in more detail as the factors he applied, primed the outcome (Takooshian, 2000). It is important to recognize the limitations of the research as it cannot be reproduced due to ethical implications. Further, in practice, there were deceptions that would not apply in real life and we cannot ‘test’ real life without harm. Milgram’s work does provide insight into factors where he made variations and provided rich data. They do not reflect an individual’s reaction to authority in real life.

Influential Factors

Obedience is accepted as driven by environment and situation rather than person-centered (LaPiere, 1934). The reaction of obedience emerges via individual layers of social attitudes, which are discharged when presented with a stimulus environment (Werhan et al, 2013). Stereotypes reinforce situational social cues and attitudes; it is generally socially acceptable to comply with authority figures in our relative chain of command and so when faced with the decision of obedience it is often one of internal conflict if there is a mismatch between our belief, familiarity or sense of self, and our actions (Miller, 1995). Milgram and others used stereotypes and stereotypical clinical environments, which provided legitimacy, making the scenario loaded from the outset to override individual differences. Zimbardo found similarly that environment was dominant but also that ‘roles’ were a factor for example. The results of the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that utilizing authoritarian techniques on prisoners resulted in obedience even though it was essentially role play. A combination of situational and role factors effectively ‘turned’ good people (APA, 2004). Milgram found that participants subconsciously homed in on certain elements of their environment where they incrementally obeyed, foot-in-the-door orders showing that a gradual commitment was influential. His variations show proximity is a factor, but it is not significant. If the authority figure is closer, the participant is more likely to comply. If the victim is physically further away the participant is more likely to comply (Blass, 2006), this is supported by Kilham and Mann in 1974 with directly or indirectly administering pain. Higher level obedience was found where individuals were not directly administering pain. Participants were able to exclude mental elements which would force a different decision – disobedience and did not utilize valuable options available to them (Bazerman, 2006). Festinger describes this as cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), humans are motivated to maintain balance in our minds about our sense of self (Brehm, 1962). It may explain there is no such thing as a good person, just a reaction to a situation, whereby the most altruistic of people can change their attitude and consequently, their behavior. Later replications confirmed evidence for individual differences in empathy and desire for control to be present, but situation was still dominant (Burger, 2009).

In 1951, Solomon Asch began with studies that examined a person’s judgement of the length of lines (Russell, 2011). He discovered that co-participants were a factor influencing obedience (Milgram, 1978). The observer in the laboratory is expressed by research since 1960 as being a passive presence, not involved but giving a command politely, rather than a co-actor which would have been an influential factor (Zajonc, 1065), but if the person is alone, obedience is higher.

Daniel Baston researched ‘virtue ethics’; where we rely on the idea that we possess durable character traits to outweigh environmental and situational factors, but ethics and morals are shown to lose out depending on the situation (Schmidt, 2011). Milgram, created a primed, manufactured, climate for obedience to take place, all the ingredients for obedience were present and some argue it precluded the individual from utilizing their moral imagination, culminating in a moral ‘blind spot’ (Werhane et al., 2011). Milgram himself identifies he created the perfect storm, the factors in that storm were credibility (Yale), the legitimate scientific setting (some professions do carry a higher weight of credibility), and the responsibility to continue what they agreed to start. It presented an opportunity for supposed learning. The shocks were evidenced to the participant as not very painful and certainly not dangerous. There was a physical and visual distance from the learner but under the observational watch of an authority figure, in what may have felt clinical plus a time pressure, allowing little time for deeper processing all contributed (Werhane, 2011). Milgram did not test reality. He tested contrived environmental reaction but what caused the individual reaction, which disturbs many, is still being explored.

Social constructivism is a contemporary theory that offers the suggestion that our minds do not mirror experience, they reframe and reconstruct our experiences whilst interacting with the data present. The data, in this case, is all the ingredients presented to the participant which activated their social learning (Gentner et al., 1997). Werhane states that this process is always incomplete. Additional factors are familiarity, where one can dispense with what they do not recognize, causes us to miss data, follow the familiar, and potentially act in a short-sighted way. Further to the loaded situation, Bickman found obedience was higher where people dressed as a guard as opposed to a milkman (Bickman, 1969), supporting that visual imagery (cognitive data stored) or status is a factor, it does not account for a person who had never cognitively stored that data, which will be unique to every individual or possibly universal and this would need to be tested further as it can be at an organizational or individual level (Tyler, 2006). This is relevant today in workplaces (Wojciszke et al., 1998) and can lead to catastrophes such as the 2008 banking crisis (Werhane, 2013) or the Ford Pinto scenario (Gioia, 1992) clearly this topic would benefit from further research to gather data from real-life situations.

The very presence of an authority figure can lead to negative emotions such as stress or an impact on the sense of self and self-esteem, creating submissive behavior. The internal drive response is under stress, overlaid by past experiences (Moore, 2016) and produces a fight, flight, or freeze response (Poumpouras, 2020) to the situation. This is suggested in the two experiments by Zajonc referred to above. Literature suggests we have two processes that emerge when in the position of making a moral decision and they are heightened in the presence of an authority figure. We are thought to have a few primed evolutionary impulses which are biologically based toward survival, as we are looking at this paper from a social perspective, this will not be expanded on, save to say that one method of survival is to obey authority (Narvaez, 2008). As much as we desire approval, we dread condemnation, and therefore the choice to obey authority figures stems from a desire to avoid punishment, rejection and reprimand but it is still a choice, albeit under stress (Selye, 1956).

In Milgram’s experiments, some participants admitted feeling no personal responsibility, they discharged it to the authority figure, this links back to the Holocaust trials of officers carrying out atrocities in the names of their superiors, feeling detached from the acts themselves. An external locus of control allows the person to feel that what happens is outside of their control, they are more likely to be obedient if they can distance themselves without any personal responsibility or damage to their sense of self or ego. In 1991, Blass found that there was a link between internal locus of control and resistance to obedience and this is supported by Rotter, who in 1966 demonstrated that where people had an internal locus of control there were less influenced by others. This dimension is built from early childhood experiences which feed into individual differences (Liable et al., 2000). An Austrian study in 1985 by Schurz demonstrated a way of dealing with complex or difficult emotions is to discharge them or process by splitting, denial, projection or transference. Milgram conveniently catered for this by shielding the view of the teacher. Milgram described the participants as entering an agentic state, allowing for detachment.

Reward power is very attractive to an individual as Skinner was able to demonstrate. If there is a reward or collective good as the outcome of obedience, the individual may be more likely to comply and we have a recent example of this with the Covid-19 global pandemic. Thinking solely about the UK, we have seen fairly high levels of obedience as we were instructed to ‘save the NHS’. The UK is a democratic country, accustomed to freedom and for us to comply it was more sensible to create a feeling of sacrifice or protection. Collectivist cultures for which the backbone of cooperation and compliance is crucial to the survival of society, act in the interests of keeping that framework stable (Triandis H. 1988). An individualistic culture may possess more individuals who feel comfortable behaving independently, if a culture is based around being less likely to conform this will be present in the individual differences of that person (Werhane et al., 2011). Later studies accounted for the fact that a person may possess both collectivist and individualistic traits and this is based on attempts to measure tendencies and the causes or consequences of their behavior (Triandis, 2018). In 2009 Burger, produced a study which found no differences arose from gender, this was also supported by Blass in 2012 who studied cross-culture variations too, so it appears gender is not an influential factor.

Conclusion

We might argue obedience cannot be tested in reality but it is tested daily, in testament that most people do not commit regular daily harm to others. The majority accept personal responsibility for their actions and obey social rules. In reverse, it would be interesting to test the actions of a ‘bad person’ in obeying an order to help or rescue and examine if they would comply given the right situation. A contemporary example of disobedience can be witnessed in the HMCS Family Law Courts, where a mother disobeys a court order to hand over her children to a perpetrator and risks sanctions. Domestic abuse itself is hauntingly similar to Milgram’s experiment in many ways and perhaps if we use the research to analyze domestic abuse, we can support the 1 in 3 women who suffer it currently (Clemente et al., 2021). If contemporary mindfulness techniques were used in a replication, it may prove impossible to get any participant to obey. Whilst we cannot recreate the studies due to ethical issues, (Bettelheim, cited in Blass, 2004) values, cultures, and lifestyles develop and evolve meaning that the Milgram study would not be directly comparable to today (Orne, 1968), but we can see from recent studies (Santa Clara, 2006) that an explanation which blames ‘the 1960’s culture’ falls away and that obedience transcends time to kneel before the right situation.

Ever since we were children, we have been obeying a higher authority and conforming to what society wants us to believe. Growing up, we have been obeying some form of a higher power, whether it’s our parents, teachers, or guardians because that’s what society has been telling us to do throughout our childhood. When someone is being obedient, their listening to someone else that has some power over them, it could be one person being the highest authority over a small or large group of people and when each person in that group listens to that higher authority they are all conforming to that higher authority. When someone doesn’t want to obey that higher authority or conform to the majority of a group, that one person could face some kind of punishment. Obedience and conformity have been ingrained into us that if we refuse to listen, we will be outcast from society. As shown in scientific studies, with researchers like Asch and Milgram as well as my personal experience, not obeying or conforming to what society wants is scary, leading to isolation and you could be shamed by the people closest to you.

Obedience is something we all have been doing for our whole lives it becomes human nature to listen to someone with power and it would be terrifying not obey to that person in power. According to the article, “The Perils of Obedience” Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment about how an authority figure is able to give demands and the participants follow these demands even if someone is getting hurt. Before the experiment, Milgram states “Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to” (144). Obedience is something built into us: “… Obedience is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency… overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct” (144). Milgram’s experiment shows how one participant resisted the orders of the experimenter and in response, the experimenter persisted him to follow the orders given to him. The participant said, “I can’t stand it, I’m going to kill that man in there… I’m not going to get that man sick in there” (147). The experimenter keeps on persisting for the participant to keep going, “The experiment requires that you continue… Whether the learner likes it or not, we must go on… It’s absolutely essential that you continue” (147-148). The participant is scared of what the experimenter would do to him if he didn’t listen.

What emerges from the Milgram experiment is that the participant refused to listen to the higher authority’s (which in this case was the experimenter’s) demands by not following through. Obedience is something we have been wired to do since the day we were born. It has been rooted in our human consciousness that a lot of people don’t even question if orders from an authority figure they have good intentions or not. In the experiment, the participant was scared of hurting another individual by not following the orders he was given. The participant was also scared of ruining the results of the whole experiment if he didn’t listen. The participant was going to have to obey the demands no matter what or he might receive some kind of punishment.

Conforming to a group is what we humans have been doing since the dawn of man, we all want to be in a group, but leaving that group could leave you in isolation. In the article, “Opinions and Social Pressure” Solomon Asch conducted an experiment on how a group of people is able to pressure an individual into conforming with the rest of the group. Asch states “That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong that reasonably intelligent… young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern” (143). Wanting to be in a large group is something that is built into our DNA forever. While Asch conducted the experiment he notes that “One person near the end of the group disagrees with all the others” (140). That one person that disagrees is looked down upon with Asch stating, “The dissenter becomes more and more worried and hesitant…he may pause before announcing his answer and speak in a low voice, or he may smile in an embarrassed way” (140). The individual noticed that he was alone and was scared of disagreeing with the rest of the group. When Asch gave the participant a “truthful partner” (142), the more the participant became in the minority of the group. When the partner started to agree with the majority, the participant followed the partner.

Asch’s experiment shows how people are willing to be in the majority because many people would rather be wrong as a group than be right by themselves. A lot of this mentality can be traced back to the primal age. Cavemen would hunt in groups in order to both survive and hunt, if a caveman was by himself he would not survive for very long. Conforming to a group is easy, but having to break away from that group will be hard since you will likely be the only one leaving that group. When that one participant disagreed with the group, he felt ashamed and scared, because he isolated himself from the rest. When the participant had a partner that would agree with him, he had more confidence in himself, because he knows that he won’t be alone. He’s still in the minority and he’s fine with that as long as he is not alone.

Both obedience and conformity may seem different at first, but both are able to go hand and hand with each other. Through my personal narrative, I’ve experienced both obedience and conformity firsthand in a negative way. In elementary school, my family and I went to a “Church” at my school cafeteria where a priest was going to speak about the “Words of God”. My family at first didn’t seem interested at first, but my aunt convinced my mom to at least give it a try. We entered the cafeteria, it was almost full and we waited for the priest to come out. Eventually, the priest came out and spoke about how “God needs your money”. The next day my mom wants us to go again this coming Sunday, but I didn’t want to go. The next few weeks, my family and I kept going and my parents would give money to the priest. I wanted to tell my parents that I didn’t believe in the words the priest was saying, but I was afraid that my parents would get angry at me. I didn’t want to listen to the priest by listening words he said about how “God needs your money” and I didn’t want to conform to his demands just like my parents did.

From my Personal Narrative, I experienced both obedience and conformity in a negative way. When I didn’t conform the same way as my parents, they shamed me. The people I cared about the most looked down upon me as if I was less of a human. I felt terrible for being shamed by my parents and when my parents would go to church I stayed home. I had to be obedient to the priest and his words as well as conform just like my parents have.

David Brooks argues that being obedient is important in order to feel safe and to be able to help society grow for future generations. David Brooks is a writer for the New York Times, he emphasized that obeying a person with power is necessary, but his opinion is very one-sided. Brooks explains that throughout history, we had many powerful leaders, like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, who were able to help our society by having the American people look up to them by listening to their commands. Brook also explains that society is to blame because society would rather listen to the victims of power than the people that wield that power. Brooks would rather have one person with skills to be the leader and the others should follow that person and learn from him. However, Brook’s argument is very one-sided. Instead of having to follow one person instead that one person should help out the rest of the people. People should have to follow a single person in order to become as good as them. We all should have skills so everyone could be successful to not only help ourselves but to help others. Don’t mindlessly follow someone just because they have skills that are better than you. You don’t need to follow someone in order to have the same skills as them.

After researching and going through the experience of conformity and obedience, it showed me that removing yourself from a group or not following orders from someone with higher authority will be scary, and could leave you feeling isolated and shamed by the people you know. Asch’s experiment shows the power that conforming has over us by the pressure of a large group of people that dictate our final decision. Milgram’s experiment shows that power obedience has over us by the way we follow someone with a higher power. Also, my personal experience gave me a first-hand experience of both obedience and conformity. It will take a lot of strength in order to be able to overcome the fear of breaking away from conforming or being obedient to something you don’t believe in. It’s best to follow what you believe in rather than following something you don’t and if you plan to disassociate yourself be prepared for the worst that might come your way.

Situational variables are depicted in a variety of ways for example they will often form an external explanation for obedience (when a person obeys an authority figure). In this paper I will carefully outline several situational variables that form a base for obedience, including location and uniform.

A situational variable is often thought of as the catalyst for obedience, one of the most significant variables discovered in Milgram’s research was the idea of uniform having a massive turning point on how participants followed the agentic state or the autonomous state. A single uniform made a great difference in the results and it was estimated that those with more of a serious authority experienced greater obedience rate. A simple example of this may be a teacher against a student, in this example people are most likely going to be obedient towards the teacher because they are older and will have more authority than students. Linking this idea of students and teachers, in 1974 Milgram proposed the idea of the agency theory which argues that we are socialized and taught from an early age to follow obedience in order for society to stay intact and stable. From this idea Milgram may be stating that because teachers are older it’s in the students’ blood to automatically respect them and look up to them to keep society stable. This idea then ties in with uniform because from a young age we are taught to respect people in professional uniforms, for example policeman. Stanley Milgram decided to play on this thought and in one of his variations he decided that the experimenter should wear a white lab coat to make him appear more ‘authoritative’ and have a respectable front but in order for Milgram to examine the efficacy and true strength of uniform he had to send the experimenter away and replace them with another participant who would be wearing ‘normal’ clothes; this person was in fact the confederate (actor). In this variation the participant decided to make things more interesting by increasing the voltage every time a mistake was made by the learner. The results revealed a lot about the power of uniform; the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts dropped from a staggering 65% to 20% this soon revealed that obedient individuals accept the power and status of authority figures to give them orders instead of a regular person in ‘normal’ clothes. This also reveals that people are less likely to obey when the authority figure does not represent a legitimate source of authority.

Research supports this idea of uniform having more of an influence on a person’s obedience levels. In 1974, Bickman carried out a small experiment in New York. This experiment was based on picking up litter from the streets of New York. From his test it was discovered that only 19% would obey this task when he was dressed in civilian clothes, similarly only 14% would respect the task when dressed as a milkman, but 38% valued his request when he wore a security guard’s uniform. This was a clear sign that members of the public passing by had more trust in the security guard because of his authoritative nature in comparison to the milk man who just delivers milk for a living. This backs up my earlier point on how uniform is a powerful driving force that can have a massive impact on obedience levels. Not surprisingly, Bickman also discovered that even after asking the public to pick up litter in his security guard outfit and when walking away people still obeyed his command this displays the power of uniform.

Many people may argue that the location of an environment has no effect on obedience levels however this was proved otherwise. Location may be a small variable, but it has an immense effect on how well people a likely to respond to a task. In locations where it appears more professional participants are more likely to take the situation more seriously. For example, if a policeman decided to host an interview in an environment which was not related to jail, or a prison sentence, the prisoner will not take it seriously and instead will be more disobedient towards the officer, but if the meeting was held in a police station, the prisoner will feel more obedient towards the officer. This is evidence that obedience rates are often highest in institutionalized settings where obedience to authority figures is instilled into members. Linking this idea to a previous study of Milgram’s would be the fact that he decided to carry out his study in a prestigious, well-respected environment known as Yale University, which belongs to the Ivy League and has a high-status. This meant that obedience was high. Research supports the idea of location being a contributing factor to obedience levels. For example, in Milgram’s study he decided to change the location from his original place (Yale University) to an office block in a run-down part of town. This change later revealed that obedience levels dropped from 62.5% to 47.5%, which therefore suggests the sudden change in location reduces the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure.

In conclusion, it is clearly blatant that situational factors (uniform and location) have a drastic effect on obedience rates and it can change how one perceives the other. From my essay it is evident that people only obey when they believe it is a legitimate state of authority and when they feel the person is more superior than them.