Evaluating dispositional explanations of obedience

RESEARCH SUPPORT: Research has provided evidence to support the notion that the authoritarian personality is a possible explanation for obedience. In a study conducted by Milgram and Elms (1966), post-experimental interviews were conducted with participants who displayed full obedience in Milgram's original study, with the aim of establishing a connection between high levels of obedience and an authoritarian personality. The results showed that the obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale when compared to the disobedient participants. Additionally, the obedient participants had less closeness to their fathers during childhood and held the experimenter in high esteem, which was opposite to the experience of disobedient participants. Based on these findings, it was concluded that obedient participants in Milgram's original study exhibited more traits associated with the authoritarian personality.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: It is possible that individual differences play a role in the formation of an authoritarian personality. Middendorp and Meleon's (1990) research has indicated that individuals with lower levels of education are more likely to exhibit traits associated with the authoritarian personality when compared to their highly-educated counterparts. If these findings are valid, it may be inferred that obedience is not exclusively attributed to authoritarian personality characteristics, but could also be influenced by educational levels.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES: The measures used to identify authoritarian personality traits may face methodological criticisms. There is a likelihood of response bias or social desirability in the F-scale, where participants may provide socially acceptable responses. This could lead to participants being falsely identified as authoritarian when they are not, as they may feel compelled to answer in a way that aligns with societal norms. This, in turn, may compromise the internal validity of using questionnaire research methods to determine the extent of authoritarianism.

POLITICAL BIAS: Christie and Jahoda (1954) have pointed out that the F-scale may reflect a political bias. They argue that the F-scale only measures extreme right-wing ideologies, which means it neglects the role that authoritarianism has played in left-wing political movements like Chinese Maoism and Russian Bolshevism. This limitation of Adorno's theory highlights a bias in what is considered to be the core of the authoritarian personality and raises questions about the F-scale's ability to account for obedience to authority across the diverse political spectrum.