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., 204). The key element with obedience is the authority figure and that the action may be at odds with an individuals 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 960s. 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). Milgrams studies have been critiqued and replicated showing consistent results for situational factors (Dolinski, 207) 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. Milgrams work does provide insight into factors where he made variations and provided rich data. They do not reflect an individuals reaction to authority in real life.
Influential Factors
Obedience is accepted as driven by environment and situation rather than person-centered (LaPiere, 934). The reaction of obedience emerges via individual layers of social attitudes, which are discharged when presented with a stimulus environment (Werhan et al, 203). 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 deci
sion 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, 995). 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 974 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, 957), humans are motivated to maintain balance in our minds about our sense of self (Brehm, 962). 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).