{"id":129,"date":"2016-07-12T16:57:17","date_gmt":"2016-07-12T20:57:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialpsychben\/?post_type=chapter&p=129"},"modified":"2019-08-01T18:24:37","modified_gmt":"2019-08-01T22:24:37","slug":"obedience-power-and-leadership","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/socialpsychben\/chapter\/obedience-power-and-leadership\/","title":{"raw":"Obedience and Power","rendered":"Obedience and Power"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Describe and interpret the results of Stanley Milgram\u2019s research on obedience to authority.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\nOne of the fundamental aspects of social interaction is that some individuals have more influence than others. Social power<\/strong> can be defined as the ability of a person to create conformity even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes<\/em> (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003).\u00a0Bosses have power over their workers, parents have power over their children, and, more generally, we can say that those in authority have power over their subordinates. In short, power refers to the process of social influence itself\u2014those who have power are those who are most able to influence others.\r\n

    Milgram\u2019s Studies on Obedience to Authority<\/h2>\r\nThe powerful ability of those in authority to control others was demonstrated in a remarkable set of studies performed by Stanley Milgram (1963).\u00a0Milgram was interested in understanding the factors that lead people to obey the orders given by people in authority. He designed a study in which he could observe the extent to which a person who presented himself as an authority would be able to produce obedience, even to the extent of leading people to cause harm to others.\r\n\r\nLike his professor\u00a0Solomon Asch, Milgram\u2019s interest in social influence\u00a0stemmed in part from his desire to understand how the presence of a powerful person\u2014particularly the German dictator Adolf Hitler who ordered the killing of millions of people during World War II\u2014could produce obedience. Under Hitler\u2019s direction, the German SS troops oversaw the execution of 6 million Jews as well as other \u201cundesirables,\u201d including political and religious dissidents, homosexuals, mentally and physically disabled people, and prisoners of war. Milgram used newspaper ads to recruit men (and in one study, women) from a wide variety of backgrounds to participate in his research. When the research participant arrived at the lab, they were introduced to a man who the participant believed was another research participant but who was actually an experimental confederate. The experimenter explained that the goal of the research was to study the effects of punishment on learning. After the participant and the confederate both consented to participate\u00a0in the study, the researcher explained that one of them would be randomly\u00a0assigned to be the\u00a0teacher and the other the learner. They were each given a slip of paper and asked to open it and to indicate what it said. In fact both papers read teacher<\/em>, which allowed the confederate to pretend that he had been assigned to be the learner and thus to assure that the actual participant was always the teacher. While the research participant (now the teacher) looked on, the learner was taken into the adjoining shock room and strapped to an electrode that was to deliver the punishment. The experimenter explained that the teacher\u2019s job would be to sit in the control room and to read a list of word pairs to the learner. After the teacher read the list once, it would be the learner\u2019s job to remember which words went together. For instance, if the word pair was blue-sofa<\/em>, the teacher would say the word blue<\/em> on the testing trials and the learner would have to indicate which of four possible words (house<\/em>, sofa<\/em>, cat<\/em>, or carpet<\/em>) was the correct answer by pressing one of four buttons in front of him. After the experimenter gave the \u201cteacher\u201d a sample shock (which was said to be at 45 volts) to demonstrate that the shocks really were painful, the experiment began. The research participant first read the list of words to the learner and then began testing him on his learning.\r\n\r\nThe shock panel, as shown in Figure 6.9, \"The Shock Apparatus Used in Milgram\u2019s Obedience Study,\"<\/a> was presented in front of the teacher, and the learner was not visible in the shock room. The experimenter sat behind the teacher and explained to him that each time the learner made a mistake the teacher was to press one of the shock switches to administer the shock. They were to begin with the smallest possible shock (15 volts) but with each mistake the shock was to\u00a0increased by one level (an additional 15 volts).\r\n<\/a>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1782\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"350\"]\"milgram<\/a> Figure 6.9 Milgram Experiment v2. Original uploader was Expiring frog at en.wikipedia, under CC BY SA ( http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/3.0\/)[\/caption]\r\n\r\nOnce the learner (who was, of course, actually an experimental confederate) was alone in the shock room, he unstrapped himself from the shock machine and brought out a tape recorder that he used to play a prerecorded series of responses that the teacher could hear through the wall of the room. As you can see in Table 6.2,\"The Confederate\u2019s Schedule of Protest in the Milgram Experiments,\" <\/a>the teacher heard the learner say \u201cugh!\u201d after the first few shocks. After the next few mistakes, when the shock level reached 150 volts, the learner was heard to exclaim \u201cGet me out of here, please. My heart\u2019s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out!\u201d As the shock reached about 270 volts, the learner\u2019s protests became more vehement, and after 300 volts the learner proclaimed that he was not going to answer any more questions. From 330 volts and up the learner was silent. The experimenter responded to participants\u2019 questions at this point, if they asked any, with a scripted response indicating that they should continue reading the questions and applying increasing shock when the learner did not respond.\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nTable 6.2 The Confederate\u2019s Schedule of Protest in the Milgram Experiments\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    75 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    90 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    105 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh! (louder<\/em>)<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    120 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh! Hey, this<\/em> really hurts.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    135 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    150 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!! Experimenter! That\u2019s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart\u2019s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart\u2019s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    165 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh! Let me out! (shouting<\/em>)<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    180 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh! I can\u2019t stand the pain. Let me out of here! (shouting<\/em>)<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    195 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh! Let me out of here! Let me out of here! My heart\u2019s bothering me. Let me out of here! You have no right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here! My heart\u2019s bothering me. Let me out! Let me out!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    210 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!! Experimenter! Get<\/em> me out of here. I\u2019ve had enough. I won\u2019t<\/em> be in the experiment any more.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    225 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    240 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    255 volts<\/td>\r\nUgh! Get me out<\/em> of here.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    270 volts<\/td>\r\n(agonized scream<\/em>) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out. Do you hear? Let me out of here.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    285 volts<\/td>\r\n(agonized scream<\/em>)<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    300 volts<\/td>\r\n(agonized scream<\/em>) I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can\u2019t hold me here. Get me out. Get me out of here.<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    315 volts<\/td>\r\n(intensely agonized scream<\/em>) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart\u2019s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you. (hysterically<\/em>) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out!<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\nBefore Milgram conducted his study, he described the procedure to three groups\u2014college students, middle-class adults, and psychiatrists\u2014asking\u00a0each of them if they thought they would shock a participant who made sufficient errors at the highest end of the scale (450 volts). One hundred percent of all three groups thought they would not do so. He then asked them what percentage of \"other people\" would be likely to use the highest end of the shock scale, at which point the three groups demonstrated remarkable consistency by all producing (rather optimistic) estimates of around 1% to 2%.\r\n\r\nThe results of the actual experiments\u00a0were themselves quite shocking. Although all of the participants gave the initial mild levels of shock, responses varied after that. Some refused to continue after about 150 volts, despite the insistence of the experimenter to continue to increase the shock level. Still others, however, continued to present the questions, and to administer the shocks, under the pressure of the experimenter, who demanded that they continue. In the end, 65% of the participants continued giving the shock to the learner all the way up to the 450 volts maximum, even though that shock was marked as \u201cdanger: severe shock,\u201d and there had been no response heard from the participant for several trials. In sum, almost two-thirds\u00a0of the men who participated had, as far as they knew, shocked another person to death, all as part of a supposed experiment on learning.\r\n\r\nStudies similar to Milgram\u2019s findings have since been conducted all over the world (Blass, 1999), with obedience rates ranging from a high of 90% in Spain and the Netherlands (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986)\u00a0to a low of 16% among Australian women (Kilham & Mann, 1974). In case you are thinking that such high levels of obedience would not be observed in today\u2019s modern culture, there is evidence that they would be. Recently, Milgram\u2019s results were almost exactly replicated, using men and women from a wide variety of ethnic groups, in a study conducted by Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University. In this replication of the Milgram experiment, 65% of the men and 73% of the women agreed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks when they were ordered to by an authority figure (Burger, 2009).\u00a0In the replication, however, the participants were not allowed to go beyond the 150 volt shock switch.\r\n\r\nAlthough it might be tempting to conclude that Milgram's experiments demonstrate that people are innately evil creatures who are ready to shock others to death, Milgram did not believe that this was the case. Rather, he felt that it was the social situation, and not the people themselves, that was responsible for the behavior. To demonstrate this, Milgram conducted research that explored a number of variations on his original procedure, each of which demonstrated that changes in the situation could dramatically influence the amount of obedience. These variations are summarized in Figure 6.10.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2906\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"300\"]\"Figure<\/a> Figure 6.10 Authority and Obedience in Stanley Milgram\u2019s Studies[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThis figure presents the percentage of participants in Stanley Milgram\u2019s (1974) studies on obedience who were maximally obedient (that is, who gave all 450 volts of shock) in some of the variations that he conducted. In the initial study, the authority\u2019s status and power was maximized\u2014the experimenter had been introduced as a respected scientist at a respected university. However, in replications of the study in which the experimenter\u2019s authority was decreased, obedience also declined. In one replication the status of the experimenter was reduced by having the experiment take place in a building located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, rather than at the labs on the Yale University campus, and the research was ostensibly sponsored by a private commercial research firm instead of by the university. In this study, less obedience was observed (only 48% of the participants delivered the maximum shock). Full obedience was also reduced (to 20%) when the experimenter\u2019s ability to express his authority was limited by having him sit in an adjoining room and communicate to the teacher by telephone. And when the experimenter left the room and had another student (actually a confederate) give the instructions for him, obedience\u00a0was also reduced to 20%.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the role of authority, Milgram\u2019s studies also confirmed the role of unanimity in producing obedience. When another research participant (again an experimental confederate) began by giving the shocks but then later refused to continue and the participant was asked to take over, only 10% were obedient. And if two experimenters were present but only one proposed shocking while the other argued for stopping the shocks, all the research participants took the more benevolent advice and did not shock. But perhaps most telling were the studies in which Milgram allowed the participants to choose their own shock levels or in which one of the experimenters suggested that they should not actually use the shock machine. In these situations, there was virtually no shocking. These conditions show that people do not like to harm others, and when given a choice they will not. On the other hand, the social situation can create powerful, and potentially deadly, social influence.\r\n\r\nBefore moving on to the next section, it is worth\u00a0noting that although we have discussed both conformity and obedience in this chapter, they are not the same thing. While\u00a0both are forms of social influence, we most often tend to conform to our peers, whereas\u00a0we obey those in positions of authority. Furthermore, the pressure to conform tends to be implicit, whereas the order to obey is typically rather explicit. And finally, whereas people don't like admitting to having conformed\u00a0(especially via normative social influence), they will more readily point to the authority figure as the source of their actions (especially when they have done something\u00a0they are embarrassed or ashamed of).\r\n
    \r\n

    Social Psychology in the Public Interest<\/h3>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2907\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"225\"]\"Figure<\/a> Figure 6. 11 Source: Abu Ghraib Abuse standing on box (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/File:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg) is in the public domain (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Public_domain)[\/caption]\r\n\r\nThe Stanford\u00a0Prison Study\u00a0and Abu Ghraib\r\n\r\nIn Milgram\u2019s research we can see a provocative demonstration of how people who have power can control the behavior of others. Can our understanding of the social psychological factors that produce obedience help us explain the events that occurred in 2004 at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which U.S. soldiers physically and psychologically tortured their Iraqi prisoners? The social psychologist Philip Zimbardo thinks so. He notes the parallels between the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib and the events that occurred in the \u201cprison study\u201d that he conducted in 1971 (Stanford Prison Study. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.prisonexp.org\/links.htm<\/a>).\r\n\r\nIn that study, Zimbardo and his colleagues set up a mock prison. They selected 23 student volunteers and divided them into two groups. One group was chosen to be the \u201cprisoners.\u201d They were picked up at their homes by actual police officers, \u201carrested,\u201d and brought to the prison to be guarded by the other group of students\u2014the \u201cguards.\u201d The two groups were placed in a setting that was designed to look like a real prison, and the role-play began.\r\n\r\nThe study was expected to run for two weeks. However, on the second day, the prisoners tried to rebel against the guards. The guards quickly moved to stop the rebellion by using both psychological punishment and physical abuse. In the ensuing days, the guards denied the prisoners food, water, and sleep; shot them with fire-extinguisher spray; threw their blankets into the dirt; forced them to clean toilet bowls with their bare hands; and stripped them naked. On the fifth night the experimenters witnessed the guards putting bags over the prisoners\u2019 heads, chaining their legs, and marching them around. At this point, a former student\u00a0who was not involved with the study spoke up, declaring the treatment of the prisoners to be immoral. As a result,\u00a0the researchers stopped the experiment early.\r\n\r\nThe conclusions of Zimbardo\u2019s research were seemingly clear: people may be so profoundly influenced by their social situation that they become coldhearted jail masters who torture their victims.\u00a0Arguably, this conclusion may be applied to the research team itself, which seemingly neglected ethical principles in the pursuit of their research goals. Zimbardo\u2019s research may\u00a0help us understand the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib, a military prison used by the U.S. military following the successful toppling of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Zimbardo acted as an expert witness in the trial of Sergeant Chip Frederick, who was sentenced to eight years in prison for his role in the abuse at Abu Ghraib. Frederick was the army reservist who was put in charge of the night shift at Tier 1A, where the detainees were abused. During this trial, Frederick said, \u201cWhat I did was wrong, and I don\u2019t understand why I did it.\u201d Zimbardo believes that Frederick acted exactly like the students in the prison study. He worked in a prison that was overcrowded, filthy, and dangerous, and where he was expected to maintain control over the Iraqi prisoners\u2014in short, the situation he found himself in was very similar to that of Zimbardo\u2019s prison study.\r\n\r\nIn a recent interview, Zimbardo argued (you can tell that he is a social psychologist) that \u201chuman behavior is more influenced by things outside of us than inside.\u201d He believes that, despite our moral and religious beliefs and despite the inherent goodness of people, there are times when external circumstances can overwhelm us and we will do things we never thought we were capable of doing. He argued that \u201cif you\u2019re not aware that this can happen, you can be seduced by evil. We need inoculations against our own potential for evil. We have to acknowledge it. Then we can change it\u201d (Driefus, 2007).\r\n\r\nYou may wonder whether the extreme behavior of the guards and prisoners in Zimbardo\u2019s prison study was unique to the particular social context that he created. Recent research by Stephen Reicher and Alex Haslam (2006)\u00a0suggests that this is indeed the case. In their research, they recreated Zimbardo\u2019s prison study\u00a0while making some small, but important, changes. For one, the prisoners were not \u201carrested\u201d before the study began, and the setup of the jail was less realistic. Furthermore, the researchers in this experiment told the \u201cguards\u201d and the \u201cprisoners\u201d that the groups were arbitrary and could change over time (that is, that some prisoners might be able to be promoted to guards). The results of this study were entirely different than those found by Zimbardo. This study was also stopped early, but\u00a0more because the guards felt uncomfortable in their superior position than because the prisoners were being abused. This \u201cprison\u201d simply did not feel like a real prison to the participants, and, as a result, they did not take on the roles they were assigned. Again, the conclusions are clear\u2014the specifics of the social situation, more than the people themselves, are often the most important determinants of behavior.\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Key Takeaways<\/h3>\r\n