Paper 1- Dispositional Explanation for Obedience: Authoritarian personality
Understanding the complex interplay between dispositional and situational factors in the realm of obedience has been a focal point for psychologists. Among the dispositional factors scrutinised, the authoritarian personality has garnered attention for its potential association with heightened obedience.
The pioneering work of Adorno et al. (1950) delved into the realm of authoritarian personality, seeking to quantify its influence through the creation of the California F scale. The question lingered: was obedience predominantly a product of external factors like uniform and location, or did an individual's internal predispositions, such as a particular personality trait, contribute significantly? This query prompted Milgram to embark on a follow-up study, in collaboration with Elms, seeking to unravel the intricate relationship between obedience and the authoritarian personality.
In their study conducted in 1966, Elms and Milgram meticulously examined whether obedient participants in Milgram's original research exhibited authoritarian personality traits to a greater extent than their disobedient counterparts. The sample comprised 20 obedient participants, who had administered the full 450 volts, and 20 disobedient participants, who had refused to continue. To assess authoritarian personality, participants completed various personality questionnaires, including Adorno's F scale. Additionally, open-ended questions were posed, shedding light on participants' relationships with their parents and their perceptions of the experimenter and learner in Milgram's experiment.
The findings of Elms and Milgram suggested a positive correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality traits. Obedient participants scored higher on the F scale compared to their disobedient counterparts. The research also unveiled that obedient participants had a more distant relationship with their fathers during childhood (note: all participants in Milgram's original experiment were male) and exhibited admiration for the experimenter in Milgram's experiment—an inclination contrary to disobedient participants. These results led Elms and Milgram to posit that individuals displaying higher levels of the authoritarian personality were more prone to obedience.
One primary concern is the correlational nature of the results. The correlation between authoritarian personality and obedience, though observed, doesn't establish causation. It remains challenging to pinpoint whether authoritarian personality traits directly lead to obedience or if other variables are at play. The intricate web of situational factors, such as proximity, uniform, and location, muddies the waters, suggesting that authoritarian personality, while influential, may not be the sole determinant of obedience.
Adding to the complexity, research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) introduces the factor of education level. Their findings imply that less-educated individuals are more likely to exhibit authoritarian personality characteristics. If these assertions hold true, it raises the question of whether it is the authoritarian personality itself driving obedience or if education levels play a mediating role. The dynamic interaction between personality traits and external factors complicates the causal narrative.
Furthermore, the reliance on Adorno's F scale as a measure of authoritarian personality introduces potential biases. Response bias and social desirability may skew the results, as participants might shape their responses based on perceived social norms. The risk exists that individuals may conform to what they perceive as socially acceptable, leading to an overestimation of authoritarian traits.
In conclusion, while Elms and Milgram's study provides valuable insights into the potential link between authoritarian personality and obedience, the intricacies of human behaviour demand a nuanced interpretation. The correlation observed beckons further exploration, urging researchers to navigate the labyrinth of factors influencing obedience with precision. As the field evolves, embracing a holistic understanding that considers both dispositional and situational facets will be pivotal in unraveling the mysteries of obedience.
The pioneering work of Adorno et al. (1950) delved into the realm of authoritarian personality, seeking to quantify its influence through the creation of the California F scale. The question lingered: was obedience predominantly a product of external factors like uniform and location, or did an individual's internal predispositions, such as a particular personality trait, contribute significantly? This query prompted Milgram to embark on a follow-up study, in collaboration with Elms, seeking to unravel the intricate relationship between obedience and the authoritarian personality.
In their study conducted in 1966, Elms and Milgram meticulously examined whether obedient participants in Milgram's original research exhibited authoritarian personality traits to a greater extent than their disobedient counterparts. The sample comprised 20 obedient participants, who had administered the full 450 volts, and 20 disobedient participants, who had refused to continue. To assess authoritarian personality, participants completed various personality questionnaires, including Adorno's F scale. Additionally, open-ended questions were posed, shedding light on participants' relationships with their parents and their perceptions of the experimenter and learner in Milgram's experiment.
The findings of Elms and Milgram suggested a positive correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality traits. Obedient participants scored higher on the F scale compared to their disobedient counterparts. The research also unveiled that obedient participants had a more distant relationship with their fathers during childhood (note: all participants in Milgram's original experiment were male) and exhibited admiration for the experimenter in Milgram's experiment—an inclination contrary to disobedient participants. These results led Elms and Milgram to posit that individuals displaying higher levels of the authoritarian personality were more prone to obedience.
**Critical Evaluation**
While Elms and Milgram's findings hint at a potential link between authoritarian personality and obedience, a critical evaluation is imperative to dissect the nuances of their study.One primary concern is the correlational nature of the results. The correlation between authoritarian personality and obedience, though observed, doesn't establish causation. It remains challenging to pinpoint whether authoritarian personality traits directly lead to obedience or if other variables are at play. The intricate web of situational factors, such as proximity, uniform, and location, muddies the waters, suggesting that authoritarian personality, while influential, may not be the sole determinant of obedience.
Adding to the complexity, research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) introduces the factor of education level. Their findings imply that less-educated individuals are more likely to exhibit authoritarian personality characteristics. If these assertions hold true, it raises the question of whether it is the authoritarian personality itself driving obedience or if education levels play a mediating role. The dynamic interaction between personality traits and external factors complicates the causal narrative.
Furthermore, the reliance on Adorno's F scale as a measure of authoritarian personality introduces potential biases. Response bias and social desirability may skew the results, as participants might shape their responses based on perceived social norms. The risk exists that individuals may conform to what they perceive as socially acceptable, leading to an overestimation of authoritarian traits.
In conclusion, while Elms and Milgram's study provides valuable insights into the potential link between authoritarian personality and obedience, the intricacies of human behaviour demand a nuanced interpretation. The correlation observed beckons further exploration, urging researchers to navigate the labyrinth of factors influencing obedience with precision. As the field evolves, embracing a holistic understanding that considers both dispositional and situational facets will be pivotal in unraveling the mysteries of obedience.
