Dse141

Part 1 The table shows that the predictions made by college students (140 volts) and middle-class adults (136 volts) were far below the average results recorded. On the original study when the 'teacher' had the physical presence of one authoritative figure the percentage that used maximum voltage were 65.0 per cent and the average level of shock at which ‘teachers’ refused to continue was 368 vaults, over twice the predicted. On the first variation an ordinary man was giving orders and this had dramatic effects, the percentage using maximum volts reduced to 20% and the average level of shock at which ‘teachers’ refused to continue reduced to 244 volts. On the second variation an authoritative person was giving orders but there was no physical presence, causing the percentage using maximum volts to only increase to 20.5% but the average level of shock at which ‘teachers’ refused to continue did increase to 272 volts. To summarise, the vast majority of 'teachers' had to have the physical presence of an authoritative person for them to go against their will and 'shock' the 'learner', if the experimenter was giving commands over the phone there wasn't as much pressure to obey and if a normal person was giving commands there was no pressure at all. 1 Part 2 Summary This hand-out will explain the importance of having authoritative figure when obedience is required, explained in terms of the results of a renowned study by Stanley Milgram. Background Milgram’s study took place in Yale University, advertising a paid memory study in the local newspaper to obtain a sample. Two participants were used in the original study at any one time. Participants were introduced to another participant, who was really a confederate (working with the experimenter), by a serious, grey coated man who was the experimenter. Both had a role to play, a ‘teacher’ who would shock a ‘learner’ every time the ‘leaner’ answered incorrectly on a memory test and the subsequent shock voltage would increase. The role of who plays whom was decided by each participant choosing a slip of paper, but the confederate always ended up with the ‘learner’ slip, so the real participants were always the ones being studied as the ‘teacher’. The ‘teacher’ is given a shock of 45 volts to experience what they will be ‘administering’. This is the only real shock in the entire experiment. The ‘teacher’ is led into a different room with shocking apparatus with switches that increase up to 435 volts. The shocking apparatus is a simulator, giving no real shocks. The ‘leaner’ is in a different room so the ‘teacher’ believes he is being shocked. When the experiment begins, the ‘learner’ responds correctly the majority of the time, but as time goes on the ‘learner’ starts to respond incorrectly and the ‘teacher’ is required to increase the voltages and continue shocking. At 120V they hear the ‘leaner’ ‘shout’ in pain (all noises and shouts were recordings played in the room where the ‘learner’ is) and at 150V, ask to be released. When the ‘teacher’ asks to stop, the experimenter states that they must continue and shockingly, 65% of the participants increased the voltage to the maximum. When an ordinary man gave the orders to continue, only 20% went to the maximum, and when orders were given over the phone only 20.5% went to the maximum ( Discovering Psychology, 2010, p67). One of many ethical issues in this study is that participants were not given the right to Withdraw, even on request. If participants didn’t request to Withdraw, it could be to do with the fact that they felt obliged to continue as they were being paid. Main Body Soldiers in combat situations can be said to be similar to the participants in Milgram’s Obedience study, being told to inflict harm to another human being just by being told to do so by someone who they perceive to be an authoritative figure. Like in Milgram’s study however, an authoritative figure is required so the participants, (soldiers in this case), will perform their duties to the extent that is required, without a perceived authority figure there is no guarantee that soldiers in combat will carry out their duties if those duties include causing death to other human beings. The results highlight the importance of a clear authoritative 2 figure when orders are being given which are required to be obeyed. You are training to be this authoritative figure that will drive a group of individuals to serve their country to the fullest extent. Officer –Officer Conflict In one of Milgram’s study variations, participants caused significantly less pain when there were two experimenters’ present with conflicting orders, one telling them to stop and one telling them to continue. In a combat scenario you cannot afford for this to occur, there needs to be a clear authoritative figure, one who the soldier perceives to be the man in charge, and the man who knows what’s best. If there are two officers present make sure that you both have a clear cut tactic that both completely agree on, any disagreement will inhibit the obedience of your soldiers which could have drastic consequences. Milgram’s study shows that, environmental factors, such as place and who is around you (in this case and authoritative figure) massively affect your behaviour and obedience, contrary to popular belief at the time (Discovering Psychology, 2010, p89). Milgram’s entire study showed little change between different kinds of people, suggestion personality has a rather insignificant effect on one’s behaviour such will be true in warfare, in combat your soldiers are in an unusual environment with an authoritative figure Conclusion The main idea that should be taken away with you after referring to this hand-out is that Authoritative figures are responsible for the soldiers and their behaviour. Argentic Shift suggests that the soldiers perceive the blame to be passed to the authority that provided the task, so after reading everything above, the fact that you, the authority, can determine what actions a soldier undertakes, you should consider your responsibility for the men you’re leading.