Attributions of responsibility in a fraternity setting

While studies by Stanley Milgram have shown that obedience to authority influences subjects' willingness to engage in behavior pbtentially harmful to others, Drout and Vandler (1992) found that observers consider an authority figure who harms or commands another person to harm someone more responsible and punishable than the obedient subordinate. Why does the authority figure command greater censure? Because the authority of the superior is often confounded with the expertise of the superior, the present study examined responses to an authority figure and to a subordinate in a fraternity setting, where there was minimal difference in expertise yet significant difference in authority. It was hypothesized that greater responsibility would be attributed to a fraternity president as executant (forcing a pledge to consume liquor) than to an obedient brother doing his bidding. Findings are that students viewed the president as having more authority and greater liability for harmdoing yet did not consider his behavior more culpable or punishable, holding the fraternity president and brother equally responsible for events and equally punishable. The relationship between authority and responsibility is diminished in the absence of expertise on the part of the authority figure. It is found that the issue of "responsibility" is highly complex and needs clarification in situations involving obedience. Contains 7 references. (ASF) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY When rites go wrong: TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ro Attributions of responsibility in a fraternity setting C U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V) Othce of Educational Research and Improvement Dr. Cheryl E. Drout EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC1 0 This document has been reproduced as State University of New York, College at Fredonia received from the person or organization originating it 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality fe-i Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OE RI position or policy Studies by Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974), while highly controversial, have clearly shown that obedience to authority is a decisive factor in influencing subjects' willingness to engage in behavior that is potentially harmful to others. Previous research has shown that obedience to authority also influences onservers' attributions of responsibility tor harmdoing. Drout and Vander (1992) found that naive observers, untutored regarding the significance of Milgram's work, viewed an authority figure who carried out harmdoing, or commanded another person to carry out harmdoing, as more responsible and punishable than an obedient subordinate who executed harndoing in response to orders. Questions remain, however, regarding the exact nature of the role played by the authority figure in such studies. What is it about the role of the authority figure that elicits greater censure? Two factors that are generally confounded are the authority of the superior and the expertise of the superior. In many situations authority figures inherently possess greater expertise, as both a cause and a result of their being in a position of authority. The present study was designed to examine responses to an authority figure and a subordinate in a situation in which there is minimal difference in