OBEDIENCE AND AGGRESSION

by

Joe Robinson

PSY301: Social psychology

Instructor: Dr. Wendy Conaway

20 December 2010

1
 OBEDIENCE AND AGGRESSION

Does Obedience cause aggression? Does aggression cause obedience? How do

these two concepts affect the U.S. military? I will attempt to answer these questions in

the following pages.

What is obedience and aggression? Obedience is the following of orders, desires,

and plans of someone, usually a person of authority. There are two forms of obedience,

compliance and acceptance. Compliance is when you follow an implied or explicate

request while privately disagreeing (Myers, D., 2010). Acceptance is when you actually

believe in what you are asked/ordered to do (Myers, D., 2010). “Aggression is the

delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, with intent to harm and with

an expectation of causing such harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or

avoid the stimulus” (Geen, R., G., 2001). Where does aggression come from? It comes

from two sources, biological (nature) and external (nurture).

The biological nature arrives from your parents and all who came before them. It

is the result of our evolution. How much you have is determined by your hereditary,

chemical make up, and things you have taken into your body or experienced with your

mind. A male or female could have too much estrogen in their system, causing more

stereo-typical male responses. This could lead to more violent responses to threats (Wu,

M, 2009). Different drugs can cause violent reactions and exposure to violence itself can

cause Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

Recent research shows that chronic stress of the traumatic type may shrink
the hippocampus, and actually kill neurons there, as well as drastically
slow down the growth of new neurons. In addition to this startling finding,
the ‘wiring’ of the brain’s neurochemical systems become over sensitized,
and this results in the symptoms commonly seen in PTSD. The complex
chemical-neurological reactivity affects parts of the brain that are all about

2
 learning, memory, and fear conditioning. This is why child PTSD victims
(as well as adults), for example, may have difficulty with learning as
easily after the trauma (Krill, Jr., W.E., (2010).

The external source of aggression comes from frustration. Frustration occurs

when a goal is thwarted by someone or something. The Frustration-Aggression theory

by John Dollard (developed in 1939) answers some the youth to adult aggressions

(Myers, D., 2010). If you are blocked from attaining a goal then you become frustrated.

Following the model, the frustrated person either institutes aggression or does something

else, such as withdrawal from the situation. The instituted aggression is either inward or

outward. If inward, the person is still withdrawn and gets an ulcer. Outward aggression

is either directed against the frustrator or some on else as displaced aggression (Myers,

D., 2010). The Social Learning version is slightly different. It looks at Aversive

Experiences that cause frustration. Pain, heat, and attacks can cause aversive

experiences. These result in an arousal of emotions. The person then looks (if time

permits) at the rewards/costs of the anticipated consequences we have learned of a given

action (Myers, D., 2010). Possible actions include but are not limited to: dependency,

achievement, withdrawal and resignation, aggression, bodily symptoms, self-

anesthetization, with drugs and alcohol, and constructive problem solving. The social

learning theory of aggression emerged in the 1960s, largely as a result of the theorizing of

Albert Bandura and his associates (Geen, R., G., 2001).

Does obedience cause aggression? It depends. Lack of obedience can cause

aggression. Children who are not supervised or given proper channels for their energies

can become very aggressive (Rojas, M., 2010). Disobedience is a form of aggression.

Those rebelling from obedience are acting out and causing aggression to the group. This

3
can cause others to imitate the disobedience and increase the aggression. Others with in a

group can become disgruntle and use aggression to try to force those who are disobedient

to conform (Butler, P., 2010). But has obedience caused the aggression. It also depends

how the obedience is put forth. A person of authority who uses nothing but negative

reinforcement will eventually have a great deal of disobedience toward him. Negative

reinforcement can be considered aggressive behavior by those it impacts. Misuse of

obedience can cause frustration with the person of authority, leading to the frustration

models mentioned earlier in this paper. Some one who is just compliant with their group

could develop aggression towards the group or the person of authority, since they do not

believe in the goals or direction of the group. Can the act of compliance cause feelings of

frustration. Yes. Over time the person could develop frustration over their continued

following of the group (self loathing). Or, the compliant person could develop frustration

from their ineffective results in changing the direction of the group. Either way, the

compliance to obedience is not creating the aggression, but the person’s own conscious

decision to continue to comply. During World War II, the Danes and Huguenots (French

Protestants) both were disobedient to the German commands to turn over Jews for

deportation. 90% of the Jews in Denmark were shipped to Sweden. The Huguenots

operated safe houses for Jews to escape out of the country (Tiller, J., 2010). Both groups

answered that they were being obedient to their values and national ideas. The

Huguenots obeyed their belief that the Jews were God’s chosen and had to be save while

the Danes saved the Jews of their country because they Danes. The Danes did not see

Jews living in Denmark as anything other than Danes who worshiped Yahweh (Tiller, J.,

2010). Both practiced disobedience to the ruling power but obeyed their own values. At

4
this point, I would have to say there is not a direct causation effect between Obedience

and aggression. Negative methods to gain obedience can cause aggression, but then

anything that is negatively used on people can cause frustration that will lead to some

form of aggression.

How does obedience and aggression affect the military? The military could not

function without obedience and its soldier’s ability aggressively close with the enemy. If

soldiers do not obey orders then you just have an armed mob. Too much obedience can

be a problem as well.

Obedience is the opposite of defiance. But then again, obedience to a

counter-productive order can be a fully intentional act of defiance, just as
over-obedience to the therapist can be used as an avoidance of therapeutic
contact in psychotherapy. Defiance of an illegal or mistaken order, at the
same time, can be an act of intense personal loyalty and effective
functioning (Barrett, B., 1997).1

The U. S. Army Leadership Field Manual, FM 22-100 states that leaders must

teach the Army values and influence the soldiers under their command. “By educating

their subordinates and setting the example, Army leaders enable their subordinates to

make ethical decisions that in turn contribute to excellence (Department of the Army

Staff. (2004).” The leaders must next reinforce these values to bring about compliance.

After enough time the soldiers will believe the values and will be able to make informed

decisions on their own (Department of the Army Staff. (2004). This follows all the levels

of obedience: compliance, following orders even though one does not necessarily believe

them and then actually being an active participant.

1
I am guilty of obediently following a counter-productive order. My Warden is terrified that the inmates
will tear up the floor tiles and use them against us corrections officers (they have far better things to use).
So…I have been taking up any tile that even shows the slightest chance of coming loose. This has caused
the Housing wings I work at to look a bit leprous.

5
 Why would soldiers need to make informed decisions? Leaders giving orders to

commit a war crime is the first thing that comes to mind. Stanley Milgram showed in his

famous obedience experiments (Blass, T., 2009) that people will follow the directives of

an authoritarian, even to the point of possibility killing the subject. Milgram did these

experiments in response to the pain and suffering his family he and went through during

World War II. They lost entire branches of their family because of the Holocaust. Why

would ordinary citizens do this? A question not asked by Milgram was how would our

own military react to these orders? Soldiers are training to obey orders. William C.

Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen asked that question. They looked at the My Lai and

other atrocities committed by soldiers. They tried to answer two questions.

(1) What are the attitudes of those American soldiers most likely to
engage in combat toward selected issues of compliance with immoral and
illegal orders in battle and (2) What factors account for the differences in
these attitudes among U.S. soldiers? Three hypotheses were tested from a
questionnaire administered to a sample of 672 US. Army paratroopers: (1)
those soldiers who like and identify most with the military will be most
likely to follow orders regardless of the situation; (2) those soldiers who
have been successfully trained to accept orders in the military will be
most likely to follow orders regardless of the situation; and (3) those
soldiers whose personal backgrounds would lead them to accept military
training (i.e., those most likely to join the military) will accept military
ideology most completely, and hence, will be most likely to follow
orders regardless of the situation.
While some support was found for each of these hypotheses, a
multiple regression analysis indicates, in general, that those most
committed to the military system-highest ranking, getting most
satisfaction from it, etc., are most likely to be in agreement with
compliance to legal orders in combat even if immoral, but not to be in
agreement with compliance to a definite illegal order, such as one to
perpetrate a war crime (Cockerham, W., Cohen, L., E., 1980, June).2

2
Immoral orders might be: taking prisoner’s possessions, looting, stealing supplies from warehouses
(own), mostly criminal in nature. Illegal orders are: shoot the prisoners, rape and pillage, mostly crimes
against Humanity.

6
So, soldiers who have had the most training in how to apply the Army values are the most

likely to obey them, even if disobeying a direct order is being disobedient. Soldiers who

have not been in very long (less then 2 years) are still in the compliance stage of learning.

They have not internalized their lessons or, they could have been influenced by bad eggs.

An interesting aspect to Cockerham and Cohen’s study was another study done with

civilians with similar questions.

According to a survey based on a representative sample of U.S. citizens

conducted by Bachman et al. they may not be. This study found that 70 percent
of the civilians sampled in 1973 generally agreed that "Servicemen should obey
orders without question." Also when asked: "Suppose a group of soldiers in
Vietnam had been ordered by their superior officers to shoot all inhabitants of a
village suspected of aiding the enemy, including old men, women, and children?
In your opinion, what should soldiers do in such a situation?" The responses,
among civilian men, were follow orders and shoot (28 percent), refuse to shoot
(39 percent), and don't know (33 percent); for women, the responses were shoot
(15 percent), refuse to shoot (36 percent), and don't know (49 percent).
Bachman and his colleagues then asked their respondents' two further
questions: (1) "What do you think most people would actually do if they were in
this situation?" and (2) "What do you think you would do in this situation?" The
authors' report that a substantial proportion of citizens selected the "follow orders
and shoot" response to both questions (54). In particular, 29 percent of the
civilian men and 13 percent of the civilian women said they would follow orders
and shoot. A similar national survey of the American population taken in 1971
using these identical questions (Kelman and Lawrence) reports that 51 percent of
the nearly 1,000 people sampled thought they, themselves, would follow orders
and shoot.
In fact, it is possible to infer (from the above studies of the civilian sector
and the present study) that the attitudes expressed by our sample of paratroopers
indicate less compliance to illegal orders than that indicated by the general public
(Cockerham, W., Cohen, L., E., 1980, June).3

Obedience affects the military by allowing its soldiers to follow legal orders in a quick

and timely manner. In the early stages of their enlistment they follow by compliance and

later by acceptance of the Militaries values. The senior leaders, both commissioned and

3
It is often said that the Wild West was a very respectful time because every one was armed. What if it
was because most were Civil War vets and they were following their training of honor, duty, loyalty, and
respect?

7
non-commissioned officers (sergeants), are expected to know the difference between

lawful and un-lawful orders. They are also expected to make certain that junior enlisted

and junior officers do not commit or follow an illegal order by leading by example and

continuous training. The Military expects reasoned obedience, not blind obedience.

How does aggression affect the military? The military is one of the few areas left

were aggressive behavior is rewarded. Soldiers must be ready to leap into action at

any given moment when deployed. The military doesn’t want maniacs though. You

must be able to fire your weapons effectively with the intent to kill the enemy, not

wound, with a level head so you can make the most of developing situations. The

cooler and more methodical a person can be in combat, the better off they and their

troops will be.4 How do you get your troops to stay calm despite the craziness of

combat, when the psyche screams in anguish with every shot? Training now is

different than it was before the Korean War. After the publication of Men Against

Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in 1947 by S.L.A. Marshall, the military

began to use behaviorist models in weapons training. Shooting targets were now

man like, and rewarded the soldier by falling down (Grossman, D., Lt. Col., retired,

2009). So now, instead of only 20-30% of troops firing their weapons at the enemy,

you have close to 95%. Soldiers are now taught mental toughness exercises to help

them through combat. This still causes a great amount of stress because the Super

Ego will demand that you are violating social norms by committing murder

(Grossman, D., Lt. Col., retired, 2009). How do these constant levels of awareness,

stress, and mental conflict affect soldier’s minds? A very common one is PTSD or

4
Being calm and sure builds an amazing amount of confidence in your troops, even if your are scared out of
your mind.

8
 Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome5. PTSD is an anxiety disorder that is defined as

resulting from exposure to a traumatic event (Committee on Gulf War and Health:

Physiologic, 2008). Unfortunately, there has not been any evidence that there is any

relationship between different types of personalities and acquiring PTSD (Helmus,

T., Russell, G., 2005). There is a relationship between whether the soldier is in a

front line unit or a support one or if the unit is considered elite6, or at least above

average (Helmus, T., Russell, G., 2005). The unit cohesion, self-efficacy of the

soldiers, and morale of front line and above average units help mitigate the affects of

combat stress (Ibid.).

Does obedience cause aggression? No, there is not a direct causation effect between

Obedience and aggression. There is a link, but not a direct causation. The military

can not exist with out obedience. If it is used properly, according the militaries own

leadership manuals, it can and has brought about obedience to legal orders and

disobedience to illegal orders. Aggression is used by the military, and is encouraged,

but it must be shaped and used with focus and responsibility and is tied to obeying

legal and disobeying illegal orders. The illegal use of aggression, such as shooting

non-combatants after a fire fight is an obvious illegal use of aggression and would be

considered a war crime. An unfortunate affect of aggression and killing is the effect

it has on the psyche of our troops. PTSD is a very common side effect of the

traumas of combat.

5
See page 1.
6
An elite unit does not have to be airborne or anything like that. It can be the opinion of the unit itself or
even the branch of service. Every Marine considers him/herself to be elite.

9
 REFERENCES

Blass, T. (2009, February). Man Who Shocked the World : The Life and Legacy of
Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.
Helmus, T., Russell, G., (2005, July). Steeling the Mind : Combat Stress Reactions and
Their Implications for Urban Warfare. RAND Corporation
Committee on Gulf War and Health: Physiologic, (2008). Gulf War and Health, Volume
6 : Physiologic, Psychologic, and Psychosocial Effects of Deployment-Related
Stress. National Academies Press. Retrieved from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ashford/Doc?id=10225192&ppg=93.
Department of the Army Staff, (2004, February). U. S. Army Leadership Field Manual.
McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Committee on the Initial Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Military Personnel,
Veterans, and Their Families Board on the Health of Selected Populations
Institute of Medicine, (2010). Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan :
Preliminary Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members,
and Their Families. National Academies Press.
Geen, R., G., (2001). HUMAN AGGRESSION SECOND EDITION. Open
University Press.
Wu, M., Manoli, D., Fraser, E., Coats, J., Tollkuhn, J., Honda, S., Harada, N., Shah, N.,
(2009, October 2). Estrogen Masculinizes Neural Pathways and Sex-Specific
Behaviors. Retrieved from: http://www.cell.com/archive?year=2009
Krill, Jr., W.E., (2010). The Brain, Brain Chemistry, and PTSD. Retrieved from:
http://www.freewebs.com/krillco/ptsdinadults.htm
Grossman, D., Lt. Col., retired., (2009). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of
Learning to Kill in War and Society. Bach Bay Books.
Barrett, B., (1997, Nov 14). Gestalt! (ISSN 1091-1766).
A chronicle of the
developing
application of Gestalt principles, Vol.1, No.2, 1997. Retrieved
from:
http://www.g-gej.org/gestaltglobal/index.html
Department of the Army Staff, (2004). U. S. Army Leadership Field Manual,
FM 22-100. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing

10
Cockerham, W., Cohen, L., E., (1980, June). Obedience to Orders: Issues of Morality
and Legality in Combat among U.S. Army Paratroopers. Social Forces, Vol. 58,
No. 4, (Jun., 1980). Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2577325
Tiller, J., Psychologist at Henry C. Hill Corrections Center, Galesburg, IL.
Interviewed on 17 December, 2010.
Rojas, M., Chaplin at Henry C. Hill Corrections Center, Galesburg, IL.
Interviewed on 17 December, 2010.
Butler, P., Veterans Rehabilitation Counselor at the Moline, Il., Vet Center. Interviewed
on 17 December, 2010.

11