1 Social Influence- Obedience P4 (situational variables) Flashcards
what did Milgram do after conducting his original research?
he conducted multiple variations of his original study, changing one factor each time:
proximity, location and uniform
how was location investigated by Milgram?
originally, used a lab in Yale Uni
he moved his study to a run-down office in Connecticut, to see if obedience levels changed when in a less prestigious location
location variation- effect on obedience
rates dropped form 65% to 48% of ppts delivering the max shock of 450V
how was proximity investigated by Milgram?
1- learner was in the same room as the teacher
or
2- teacher forced the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’
proximity variation- effect on obedience
1- 65% dropped to 40%
2- dropped to 30% obedience rates
how was uniform investigated by Milgram?
originally, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat
-instead, they were called away and replaced with an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday, casual clothes
uniform variation- effect on obedience
dropped to 20%
(lowest and most significant change in obedience rates)
why did the location variation impact obedience?
it impacts the legitimacy of the authority in two ways:
-affects perceptions of how credible the figure is
-whether the person is seen as having authority over us in that particular situation (location is a binding factor in the agentic state theory)
why did the proximity variation impact obedience?
when the authority figure is close to us we are more likely to obey as we feel pressurised
when we are closer to the victim of our actions, less likely to shock them as we see the consequences more, we experience moral strain and guilt
-we are in the autonomous state- cannot deny involvement or responsibility
what are buffers?
they are any aspects that can protect the individual from the emotional impact of their actions
where can we see evidence of buffers in Milgram’s research?
the researcher and participants were originally placed in the same room to shield people
why did the uniform variation impact obedience?
it acts as a symbol of authority and power
-from a young age we are socialised to recognise uniforms as a symbol of authority
-they act as visual cues, therefore recognising their legitimacy or place in social hierarchy
A03 situational variables
supporting evidence point
evidence shows that situational variables impact obedience
Milgram conducted variations in his study- proximity, location and uniform all reducing obedience rates
-gives validity to these variables
however it can be claimed that his research lacks ecological validity
-lab experiment (demand characteristics)
Bickmen found that uniform in a real life setting still impacts obedience
A03 situational variables
opposing evidence point
dispositional variables may play a role
Elms and Milgram 1966 replicated Milgram’s original study
-prior to the study they took an authoritarian personality test- they found that ppts who obeyed the experimenter’s orders also scored highly on the F scale
-suggests that dispositional variables play a role and can account for individual differences
therefore, situational variables on their own do not account for individuals being influenced differently.
A03 situational variables
determinism point
situational variables present a deterministic explanation of behaviour
-behaviour is caused by environmental factors/ the social context we are in
-suggests we have no conscious control over our behaviour, are not accountable and therefore will not change it
therefore we have to be careful with how we use this knowledge of obedience
A03 situational variables
application point
understanding situational variables and their impact on obedience can have practical applications
e.g. in a school, uniforms and lanyards to show authority and maintaining the school environment and standards
-helps maintain order and structure- cause less behavioural issues
therefore, knowledge gained from research into situational variables and obedience can be highly useful
