The obedience–disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility

Obedience has been thoroughly studied in social psychology, both in its positive and negative aspects. Nevertheless, in these empirical studies disobedience has been considered to be the opposite of obedience and indeed its negation. Instead, some recent studies suggest that if obedience to authority is important in ensuring the continuity of social and group life, disobedience is crucial, under some circumstances, in stopping the authority relationship from degenerating into an authoritarian relationship. In this perspective, disobedience may be conceived of as a protest undermining the legitimacy of authority, or else it can represent an instrument of the community for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor safeguarding against authoritarianism. The aim of the present study was to empirically verify the dynamics existing between disobedience and obedience. The results show that people who attach importance to both obedience and disobedience in the relationship between the individual and society recognize the importance of democratic values and consider themselves responsible for the defence of human rights. Instead, people who only recognize the value of obedience and consider disobedience as a threat to the status quo are more authoritarian, individualistic people. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do the right thing! A study on social representation of obedience and disobedience

The present research is aimed at investigating through a mixed-method approach the dimensions underlying the psychosocial constructs of obedience, disobedience and the relations between them. To this end, we consider the attitudes toward (dis)obedience being socially constructed, and we chose the theory of social representations (Abric, 2003; Moscovici, 1961) as the theoretical framework of this study.The data, collected on a sample of 190 individuals, allowed us to define these social objects, reducing both their complexity and polysemy.Obedience and disobedience were both seen by research participants as context-dependent behaviours, neither positive nor negative, per se. Also, both related to the concept of authority (individuals, institutions, and society). However, while obedience was mostly considered an uncritical response to laws, social norms or physical authorities, disobedience was defined as an active, conscious line of conduct. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Disobeying an Illegitimate Request in a Democratic or Authoritarian System

Crimes of obedience in the form of illegal or immoral acts committed in response to orders from authority occur in many contexts. In particular, under some circumstances of threats, people can easily accept restrictions upon democratic procedures. Recent studies have underlined the role of legitimacy in understanding the authority relationship and the importance of evaluating the legitimacy of the request rather than the legitimacy of the authority in preventing the rise of authoritarianism. The purpose of this study was to verify if people respond differently when an illegitimate request is put forward by a democratic or an authoritarian authority. The results on 224 subjects confirmed that people tend to be more obedient when they perceive authorities as democratic, notwithstanding the legitimacy of their requests.     

Introduction: Law and Disobedience

This essay considers some major questions raised by civil and other forms of conscientious disobedience. What distinguishes that form of dissent? Can we recognise the legitimacy of a political system yet defy its laws? Is disobeying a democratic decision especially or entirely unacceptable, or can disobedience be an instrument of democracy? If a regime recognises rights, how should we regard disobedience that appeals to those rights in challenging the regime’s laws? How should reasons for obedience figure in our thinking about justified disobedience? The essay locates the contributions that make up this special issue of Res Publica within these debates about disobedience. It questions whether any general theory of justified disobedience can command agreement: the conditions that give rise to conscientious disobedience -- conflicting values and judgements -- seem to preclude consensus on when its use is justified.     

The triadic legitimacy model: Understanding support to disobedient groups

In a social-psychological perspective, many scholars have argued that disobedience plays a significant role in avoiding the degeneration of the authority into autocracy and in promoting social change. In particular, the tripolar model (minority-majority-population) proposed by Mugny (1982) emphasized the role of the population for the stability or the progress of every society. Authority may indeed preserve the status quo only on the grounds of its influence on a large population. Likewise, protesters may achieve social change only by influencing and involving a large part of the population in their struggles. In understanding why people decide to join a protest, the aim of this article is to integrate Kelman and Hamilton's (1989) analysis of legitimacy with the tripolar model on social influence. The model we propose – namely the triadic legitimacy model (TLM) – explains the dialectic between social stability and social change by considering both authority's and disobedient groups' legitimacies.     

Identifying Systematic Disobedience in Milgram's Obedience Experiments: A Meta-Analytic Review

ABSTRACT— A meta-analysis of data from eight of Milgram's obedience experiments reveals previously undocumented systematicity in the behavior of disobedient participants. In all studies, disobedience was most likely at 150 v, the point at which the shocked "learner" first requested to be released. Further illustrating the importance of the 150-v point, obedience rates across studies covaried with rates of disobedience at 150 v, but not at any other point; as obedience decreased, disobedience at 150 v increased. In contrast, disobedience was not associated with the learner's escalating expressions of pain. This analysis identifies a critical decision point in the obedience paradigm and suggests that disobedient participants perceived the learner's right to terminate the experiment as overriding the experimenter's orders, a finding with potential implications for the treatment of prisoners.     

A Comparison of the Legitimacy of Power Between Confucianist and Legalist Philosophies

The concept of legitimacy is at the heart of the theory of power. It is essential to understand how a political power is built and how obedience is obtained among the population. We examine here the legitimacy of power for two of the most important political philosophies of classical China: Confucianism and Legalism. We show how a specific group of the population, the scholar-officials, play a specialised role in the two systems, acting as a legitimisation group. We further compare rites and laws as a way to obtain social order, and morality vs punishments as a way to obtain obedience. We conclude that the Confucianist system is less fragile than the Legalist, but also more oppressive, since it allows fewer personal choices to individuals.     

Autonomy,Filial Piety,and Parental Authority: A Two-Year Longitudinal Investigation

A 2-year longitudinal study was conducted to test 3 causal models about adolescent autonomy, filial piety, beliefs about parental authority, and obedience in terms of personal, prudential, and multifaceted issues. Four hundred and thirty-six students from 10 junior and senior high schools in Taiwan (boys, n = 223; senior high school, n = 211) participated in the study. Hypothesis 1 predicted that autonomy (individuating autonomy vs. relating autonomy) would positively correlate with beliefs about authority legitimacy and obligation to obey, but was not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that filial piety (authoritarian piety vs. reciprocal piety) would positively associate with authority beliefs, and was partially supported. Authoritarian piety showed the positive relation with authority beliefs. Hypothesis 3 predicted that beliefs about authority legitimacy and obligation to obey would positively associate with obedience, and was supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted that age might moderate the structure models across domains, but the results indicated that age did not moderate the structural model in the prudential and multifaceted domains. The overall findings of this study reveal that adolescent beliefs about authority serve as a mediator between authoritarian piety and obedience, suggesting that traditional piety still has an influence on parent–child interaction in today's society.     

Legitimacy of regulatory authorities as a function of inclusive identification and power over ingroups and outgroups

To insure compliance with rules and laws, regulatory authorities are usually in a position of power over a heterogeneous population or multiple groups. Power may thus need to be analysed as a tripartite relationship between authority, ingroup and outgroup. Based on the social identity approach and related justice theories, it is argued that social identification with an inclusive category that includes ingroup, outgroup and authority determines how group members react to the authority's power use and perceived legitimacy. Two studies were set in the context of the Australian tax system. Study 1 used an experimental design with a student sample; Study 2 was survey with a random sample of Australian citizens. Participants who identified less strongly with the inclusive category (Australians) attributed more legitimacy to the tax authority, when it exercised effective power over the outgroup (Study 1), or when it appeared lenient towards the ingroup (Study 2). In contrast, participants who identified strongly with the inclusive category attributed more legitimacy to the tax authority when it used its powers consistently towards both groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Cross‐Cultural Comparison of Studies of Obedience Using the Milgram Paradigm: A Review

This report presents cross‐cultural comparisons of studies on obedience to authority using the classic Milgram paradigm, which provide answers to the following questions: 1. Overall, does the level of obedience found in the United States differ from that found in other countries? 2. Is the nature or pattern of sex differences in obedience the same or different in the United States and elsewhere? 3. How does Milgram’s “agentic state” conceptualization – that destructive obedience presupposes a shift in responsibility from the perpetrator to the authority – fare cross‐culturally?     

Illness, Disease, and Sin: the Connection between Genetics and Spirituality - A Response.

In responding to Mathias Beck's thought-provoking article, it seems helpful to begin with an outline and comments on Beck's case as I understand it. For me, this overview throws up three problematic areas that I explore further under the headings of 1. examining the New Testament evidence, 2. sin as disobedience, and 3. obedience, grace, and freedom. Clearly, the author's thoughts in all their nuances are not always adequately accessible in translation. Nevertheless, I hope that I have grasped the main thread of his argument. If I am right in my interpretation then Beck still has work to do to clarify and make explicit what is not only barely implicit but what is obscured by his central theme: that obedience to God's will is the mainstay of our relationship to God.     

Defying Unjust Authority: An Exploratory Study

This research explores the psychological factors potentially involved in fostering disobedience to an unjust authority. Our paradigm was modeled after that of the Utrecht Studies on Obedience (Meeus and Raaijmakers European Journal of Social Psychology 16:311-324, 1986) in which participants are ordered to give each of 15 increasingly hostile comments to a participant/victim whenever he fails a trial. Although 30% of our sample followed commands to insult the other participant (confederate), the majority did refuse to do so at some point in the escalating hostility sequence. Our procedure utilized conditions known from prior research to increase the ratio of disobedience to obedience: proximity of teacher to learner plus remote authority. In order to better understand some of the cognitive and affective processes that may predict such defiant behaviour, we utilized a variety of measures, among them, behavioural observations, individual difference assessments, and in depth post-experimental interviews.     

Historical Psychology and the Milgram Paradigm: Tests of an Experimentally Derived Model of Defiance Using Accounts of Massacres by Nazi Reserve Police Battalion 101

The Psychological Record - In Milgram’s (1963, 1965a, 1965b, 1974/2004) experiments on destructive obedience, an authority figure repeatedly ordered a resistant participant to deliver what...     

Putting the onus on authority: A review of obedient behavior and why we should move on

The obedience to authority domain arose in psychological research between the 1950s–1960s as a combination of interest in obedience, conformity, and compliance that expanded after Milgram's shock experiments. Each of these components compared different forms of submissive behavior as a response to authority and social pressure, but over the past fifty years the domain has merged these three components and become more centered around the shock of submissive behavior than the authority that causes it. As a result, many modern investigations use inconsistent understandings of these constructs and often leave out manipulation of the second half of the paradigm – authority. If we reintroduce the distinctions for each form of submissive behavior, we can notice patterns of how each is related to differences in authority and the systemic benefits of studying the nuances of authoritative systems. Understanding the impact of power dynamics on submissive behavior and what truly separates obedience from conformity and compliance not only allows for a more dualistic approach to this discipline, but allows the authority domain to provide insight into other domains such as education, workplace behavior, and conformity to mass media.     

The prescriptive power of the television host. A transposition of Milgram's obedience paradigm to the context of TV game show

IntroductionToday's fascination with television makes us wonder whether it might not represent an authority capable of leading people in a television studio to inflict cruel acts on others, even though they condemn those acts.ObjectiveThe experiment reported here allows us to answer this question in the affirmative. Therefore, we transposed Milgram's famous experimental obedience paradigm to the context of a “real” TV game show, in the studio of a large television production company, with a live audience and no prizes.MethodWe set up several experimental conditions designed to tell us if, in such contexts, obedience was the dominant response, as it is in the often-replicated classic situation. We also wished to know if the introduction of variations would reduce obedience.ResultsThe results show that obedience to the host is the dominant response, as it is in Milgram's classic situation. However, variations that are assumed to reduce this obedience do not in fact demonstrate the expected effects. An additional experimental condition appears to demonstrate that a determining factor of obedience is the physical proximity of the host incarnating the televisual power.ConclusionWe offer a conclusion addressing the societal aspects of obedience.     

Explaining the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship: Relying on relational concern or instrumental concern?

People can extract relational information (i.e., relational concern) as well as instrumental information (i.e., instrumental concern) from decision‐making procedures. Thus, both instrumental and relational concerns are assumed to influence the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Drawing from social exchange theory, the different kinds of concerns may lead to form different exchange relationships (social exchange relationship vs. economic relationship), which can be indicated by two forms of trust (affect‐based trust vs. cognition‐based trust). We built a model of trust mediation in which procedural justice predicted affect‐based and cognition‐based trust. Further, we also tested the hypothesis that high (compared with low) group identification individuals are more likely to rely on relational concern to construct procedural justice and judge legitimacy of authority, because they use procedural fairness information to infer the quality of their relationships with the authority. The results of an experiment (Study 1) demonstrated that both affect‐based trust and cognition‐based trust mediated the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Moreover, a field study (Study 2) showed that affect‐based trust mediated the relationship between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy primarily among individuals with high group identification whereas cognition‐based trust mediated this relationship primarily among those with low group identification.     

Revisiting the agentic shift: Weakening personal control increases susceptibility to social influence

What happens when people experience a reduced sense of personal control? Among the various strategies to defend against a perception of randomness, people may show an increased acceptance of external sources of control. Indeed, in one of the most classic studies in social psychology, Stanley Milgram referred to an “agentic shift”—the tendency to relinquish personal control to an external agent—to explain his dramatic obedience effects. We propose that his account is a specific manifestation of a more general phenomenon: the tendency for increased susceptibility to various forms of external social influence when perceived personal control is reduced. In a series of (lab and field) studies using a variety of perceived control manipulations, we demonstrate that a reduction in the sense of personal control increases people's vulnerability to the bystander effect, promotes obedience to authority and fosters compliance with behavioral requests. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sex-role behavior and obedience to authority: A field study

Obedience by male and female subjects to male and female experimenters was investigated under various conditions of “perceived legitimacy.” The procedure involved an experimenter stopping a subject who was about to cross a street at a particular crosswalk, the subject was then instructed to cross at another designated location. The dependent variable was the level of obedience to these instructions. The four main factorial independent variables were the sex of the experimenter, the sex of the subject, and two conditions of “perceived legitimacy” (presence or absence of a “uniform,” presence or absence of an “explanation”). Significant results were obtained for the uniform and sex of subject main effects (more obedience with a uniform, more disobedience by females). Additional analyses indicated that “older” subjects disobeyed more often than “younger” ones, that “formally” dressed subjects disobeyed more often than “informally” dressed ones, and that ethnic minority group experimenters were disobeyed significantly more often than Caucasian experimenters. Significant interactions were also obtained, mainly due to the behavior of the younger men and the older women. Male and female experimenters were obeyed equally, in general. The results are discussed in relation to sex-role prejudice and discriminatory behavior.