07. Factors Affecting Obedience: Situation and Culture

Question 1

Name 4 situational factors.

Answer 1

1. Gradual commitment
2. Proximity
3. Legitimacy- status of authority
4. Behaviour of others

Question 2

How does gradual commitment effect obedience?

Answer 2

-People are more likely to obey if there is gradual commitment.
-Trivial requests initially then request increases (duty bound to continue)
-Binding relationship (binding factors)

Question 3

Describe gradual commitment.

Answer 3

When participants gradually build a relationship with the legitimate authority without knowing. They would first complete a small task, then do larger ones when requested by the legitimate authority due to gradual building of trust between the legitimate authority and the participant.

Question 4

What is an example of gradual commitment?

Answer 4

In Milgram’s study, the voltage going up in 15V increments starting from low 15V but ending at 450V

Question 5

Describe proximity.

Answer 5

The closeness between participants and legitimate authority, this could be determined by whether there is a physical or psychological buffer between them. It is also suggested that as proximity increases, obedience decreases.

Question 6

How does proximity effect obedience?

Answer 6

-When distance increases, obedience decreases.
-Latane uses the term immediacy, meaning closeness in space and time.
-Physical distance can act like a buffer to obedience.

Question 7

What is the definition of buffer?

Answer 7

A psychological or physical barrier. Buffers are anything that reduce the immediacy and impact of the orders given, or reduce the immediacy and impact of the victim.

Question 8

What are some examples of buffers coming into play?

Answer 8

-When physical buffers were removed (learner and teacher in same room) obedience dropped to only 30%
-The shock generator created created a psychological buffer (more inclined to use machinery rather than doing something first hand)

Question 9

What is an example of proximity?

Answer 9

Milgram’s telephone variation.

Question 10

What is an example of when physical distance can act like a buffer to obedience?

Answer 10

-Telephonic conditions in Milgram’s variation studies.
-When physical buffers were removed (learner and teacher in the same room) obedience dropped to only 30%
-The shock generator created a psychological buffer (more inclined to use machinery rather than doing something first hand)

Question 11

Describe legitimacy.

Answer 11

The status of the person giving the orders effects the obedience levels of those receiving the orders. If the person giving orders has legitimate (hierarchical) or perceived authority, they are more likely to to obeyed as there is a fear of consequences and punishment.

Question 12

How does legitimacy effect obedience?

Answer 12

Legitimacy: Status of authority
-Perceived legitimacy pf authority figure an be lowered by changing their clothing, eg the ordinary man, rather than the experimenter in a grey coat. Similarly the prestige of the venue can influence obedience, eg run down office in comparison to Yale university.
-In Milgram’s ordinary an variation obedience dropped from 65% to 20%

Question 13

What is an example of legitimacy?

Answer 13

Milgram’s ordinary man variation

Question 14

Describe behaviour of others.

Answer 14

When an order is given, the behaviour of others effects levels of obedience. If others obey, people are more likely to follow along and mimic their obedient behaviour, however if there is a role model who is disobedient, others will feel more confident to speak up and go against the authority figure as well.

Question 15

How does the behaviour of others effect obedience?

Answer 15

-Expose to role models who are disobedient decreases obedience.
-Milgram variation: Two ‘peer rebels’ further teachers in the room rebelled and refused to carry on. Obedience fell to only 10%

Question 16

Describe the supporting study of proximity (Milgram’s ordinary man variation)

Answer 16

Milgram’s ‘ordinary man’ variation showed that obedience dropped to 20% when the orders to administer the shocks were given by a confederate who the participant believed was just another participant, rather than in the baseline study when instructions were given by the experimenter who had legitimate authority and obedience was 65%. This supports the situational factor of legitimacy of authority, as the lower the authority of the person giving the order, the lower the obedience of the participant.

Question 17

Describe the supporting study of proximity (Milgram’s telephonic variation).

Answer 17

-The situational factor of proximity is supported by research in Milgram’s variation when the order was given over the phone. This resulted in obedience to administer shocks up to 450V of only 22.5% compared to 65% in the baseline condition when the experimenter was present in the room.
-This research supports the theory that close proximity increases obedience, as Milgram’s telephonic variation showed that obedience dropped to only 22.5% compared to 65% when there was greater proximity.

Question 18

Describe the real life application of situational factors conducted by James Gramann (1995)

Answer 18

-Tested the effect of immediacy and legitimacy to improve compliance with countryside rules which protect wildlife and lower the risk of forest fires.
-They positioned signs explaining the rules and showing consequences if people were convicted of breaking them.
-They found that if information was provided on signs about the reasons behind countryside rules, then this increases the likelihood that participants felt they would obey.
-Such reminders of the rules prove ‘immediacy’ even when there is no authority figure around and they cause impact and a reminder of strength as they indicate the power that could potentially be brought to bear (eg being fined if caught).

Question 19

What did Milgram believe about the nature VS nurture debate in regards to cultural differences?

Answer 19

-Milgram believed it is human nature to obey and the situation affects the level of obedience.
-A different theory is that there are two main types of cultures (nurture) which also influence behaviour.

Question 20

Define nature.

Answer 20

Born with characteristics, which determine behaviour.

Question 21

Define nurture.

Answer 21

The environment dictates behvaiour.

Question 22

Describe a collectivist culture.

Answer 22

Collectivist cultures value loyalty to the group, duty, interdependence and cooperation in pursuit of group goals. About ‘we’ and stress is on the importance of the whole group as a collective. They tend to be more likely to obey.

(Eg Russia, Korea, Japan)

Question 23

Describe an individualist culture.

Answer 23

Individualist cultures value personal autonomy (responsible for oneself) and self-reliance. About ‘I’ and the emphasis is on individualism within the group. They are less likely to obey and may be more likely to resist and instruction from an authority figure.

(Eg UK, USA)

Question 24

Describe the power distance index (PDI) by Hofstede in 2017.

Answer 24

-Hofstede identified six dimensions which allow for comparison between countries regarding their cultural values.
-The PDI refers to how accepting people are of hierarchical order and inequality in society.
-Therefore we would expect cultures with a high PDI would lead a person to be highly obedient (as they respect authority and expect subordinates to do as they are told).
-People from nations low on the PDI index might be more likely to show resistance or dissent (protests).

Question 25

Describe the supporting research of Kilham and Leon Mann (1974) and Dolinski (2017) for cultural effects.

Answer 25

-In 1974, Kilham and Leon Mann replicated Milgram’s shock experiment.
-They found that there was overall 28% obedience in Australia, which has a very low PDI of 36%.
-Dolinski (2017) found 90% obedience in Poland, which has a much higher PDI of 68%.
-This suggests Hofstede’s PDI which is an indicator of how accepting people are of hierarchical order is useful in predicting obedience in different cultures.
-Shows high PDI means high levels of obedience.

Question 26

Describe the supporting research of Gupta (1983) for cultural effects.

Answer 26

-Guptata (1983) replicated Milgram’s shock generator experiment in India where there is a PDI of only 77%, they found a low obedience level of only 42.5%. In addition females were considerably less obedient than males.
-This suggests females feel more empathy and there is no cause and effect between PDI and obedience.

Question 27

Descibe Blass (1999) meta-analysis of obedience.

Answer 27

-Blass calculated the average obedience rate for 8 non-US Milgram replications finding an overall percentage of 66% compared with 61% in US replications.
-Although there is some variation both within the US and across the world, Blass reports very similar obedience across the world.
-He thought culture doesn’t affect obedience.
-This suggests individual differences are playing a role: authoritarian personality, locus of control, gender.

Question 28

Describe Ancona and Pareyson (1968) counter argument.

Answer 28

-Ancona and Pareyson found 85% obedience in Italy.
-Max shock was 330V.
-Less dangerous than baseline study of 450V.
-Students were used despite Milgram avoiding students due to their compliant and competitive nature.
-This decreases internal validity and effects reliability of findings as results may be caused due to change in procedure.

Question 29

Describe Shanab and Yahya (1977) counter argument.

Answer 29

-Found 73% obedience in Jordan.
-Participants were children aged 6-16. Children have been socialised to be obedient.

Question 30

What is a conclusion of the impact of situational factors on obedience?

Answer 30

-It would appear that the impact of situational factors on obedience is well supported by the evidence from Milgram and other researchers.
-However, the role of culture is less clear. Blass’s analysis does suggest universality of obedience, but collectivist cultures may be under-represented in the current research.
-In addition, procedural differences between studies make comparison difficult in meta-analyses.

Question 31

Describe Hofling’s (1966) refuting research.

Answer 31

-An unknown doctor over the phone gave 22 nurses orders to administer a drug that was not on their list.
-21/22 nurses complied, despite the fact that in their training they were taught not to take orders over the phone.
-This presents that proximity does not greatly affect obedience as despite the fact the order was over the phone, 95% of nurses obeyed.
-Therefore this refutes the idea that situational differences affect obedience as there are other more overriding factors.
-Having refuting research lowers internal validity of the theory.

Question 32

Describe the refuting, alternative theory of the F-scale.

Answer 32

-Argues personality has the main impact situational differences.
-Adorno (1950) devised the F-scale in order to detect authoritarian personality traits, which is likely the result of harsh parenting, that was discipline orientated, with the expectation of common perfect behaviour.
-Supporting this is Milgram and Elms (1966) comparison of F-scale scores with obedient and disobedient participants.
-They found that those who obtained a higher score, were found to be less likely to withdraw and had more submissive behaviour.
-This theory has higher validity as both a questionnaire and an interview are included in the study as accurate measurements of authoritarian personality.