Milgram’s study was conducted in a laboratory which demonstrates high internal validity as all variables were highly controlled. It also allows the experiment to be easily replicated, something which Smith and Bond (1993) did across a variety of cultures and found levels of obedience varied between 16% to 90%. However, participant believed to be engaging in a memory experiment when it was actually testing obedience therefore deception and informed consent are ethical issues the study is criticized for. Also, Baumrind (1964) criticized the study for the serious distress caused to participants by ordering them to hurt others. Milgram defends this notion of causing psychological harm by debriefing his participants.
The agency theory helps us to understand how ordinary people are capable of committing extraordinary acts of violence. It is findings from Milgrams studies that assist in the understanding of the monstrous acts committed during World War Two where Nazi war criminals mass murdered innocent people and defended their behaviour by contending simply to ‘obey orders’. The agency theory also explains why people defy orders; when in the autonomous state a person bases decisions on how to behave on their personal beliefs and experiences. However there is little evidence to substantiate the process of the ‘agentic shift’ from an autonomous to an agentic state therefore invalidating the explanation to an extent.
The second explanations of obedience is the legitimate authority. The lifelong process of socialisation teaches us the chain of authority within the social system whether its parents,
teachers or bosses. The assumption is that these authoritative figures have some sort of knowledge or expertise on the matter at hand. Milgram (1974) observed ‘a substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority’. To test this Hofling et al (1966) conducted a study which consisted of 22 female nurses, unaware that a study was taking place. Whilst at work these nurses received a phone call from a ‘Dr Smith’, with instructions to give a patient 20mg of Astrofen. Despite the fact that this is double the dosage, 21 out of the 22 nurses attempted to give the medication. A control group of 22 different nurses were asked what they would do, 21 of them said they would not have administered it. This shows there is a significant difference between what people say they will do and what they actually do.
Informed consent and deception are issues of concern in Hofling’s study; as the nurses were not aware they were participating in an experiment and believed ‘Dr Smith’ was a real doctor. Nevertheless, Hofling’s study is rich in ecologically validity because it can be generalised outside the settings of the experiment. It also has mundane realism, as its a field experiment set in a natural environment therefore retrieving natural reactions from participants. However a drawback to this method is lack of control, Rank and Jacobsen (1977) demonstrate how extraneous variables can affect obedience in their replication of the study. 18 nurses were asked to provide a dosage three times the recommended average but also given the opportunity to speak to other nurses. Only 2 nurses administered the Valium, again suggesting that situational factors are important.
There is a lack of population validity as all participants are female and therefore an unrepresentative sample. However, Bickman (1974) conducted another study that addresses perception of authority and obedience in a real-life situation. Experimenters dressed either as a civilian, a milkman or a guard. They approached pedestrians on the street and gave orders such as ‘pick that bag up.’ Results supported Hoflings findings as they showed pedestrians were much more obedient to the experimenter dressed as a guard rather than the milkman or civilian.
Legitimate authority as an explanation of obedience helps us to understand why people unquestioningly comply with direct orders from a perceived authoritative figure. This perception of authoritative figures is conditioned through the process of socialisation. It is evident that ‘Doctor Smith’ held a position with higher status than the nurses and as a result of following his instruction they critical broke rules; double the dosage potentially causing the patient serious harm. However, this theory is a only identifies a correlation between obedience and socialisation. There is no evidence of a direct link therefore weakening the theory.
