7: Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Question 1

What are the situational variables that affect obedience

Answer 1

• proximity
• location
• uniform

Question 2

Outline Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
- Proximity

Answer 2

Proximity refers to the physical closeness or nearness of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to.
It is thought that being in close proximity to an AF increases the pressure to obey them.
In a war situation, it could be argues that obeying an order to press a button from a remote location that releases a missile which kills thousands in a distant country is easier to do than obeying an order to shoot a single person standing next to you, where the consequences would be much plainer to see.

In Milgram’s research , when the researcher left the room and gave orders over the telephone, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 21%

Question 3

Outline Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
- Location

Answer 3

Location refers to the place an order is issued.
The relevant factor that influences obedience here is the status or prestige associated with the location.
For example, in the army when a commanding officer orders a soldier to jump in the air, the expected answer is ‘how high?’ not ‘why?’

Therefore, it could be argued that the high obedience level in Milgrams original study could be contributed to by the location of the study (Yale University - a high status Ivy League institution).
In Milgrams original study conducted in the prestigious setting of Yale University the obedience rate was 65%.
Participants claimed that the location of the study gave them confidence in the integrity of the people involved.
In Milgrams variation where participants were tested in the less prestigious location of a run-down office, the obedience rate dropped to 47.5%

Question 4

Outline Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
- Uniform

Answer 4

People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, which indicated to the rest of us that they can expect our obedience.

In one of Milgrams variations, the experimenter was called away and the start of the procedure amy was replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat, and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 20%

Question 5

Evaluate Research into the Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
- Strengths

Answer 5

P: Evidence to support from Bickman (1974)
E: He asked passers-by in New York to lend money to a stranger for a parking meter
E: It was found that they obeyed 49% of the time when he was dressed in street clothes but this increased to 92% of the time when he was dressed in a security guards uniform
L: Supports Milgrams finding because, although Bickmans study didn’t involve causing anyone harm (it didn’t test ‘destructive obedience’) it supports the idea that we will follow unusual orders provided the person giving them is seen to have enough authority
E: Study conducted in real-life setting so more ecological valid and reflective of obedience in real life situations

P: High degree of control over variables
E: Milgrams study took place in the controlled setting of a laboratory, making it easier to control EVs
E: For example, Milgram could control the answers given by the ‘learner’, the sound that the ‘teacher’ could hear the ‘learner’ give at specific voltages and the ‘verbal prods’ used by the researcher
L: Gives the study high internal validity

P: Easy to replicate
E: Controlled setting of a laboratory made it easier to repeat the experiment in exactly the same way, adjusting the variables each time to test their influence on obedience
E: for example, Milgram was able to keep everything the same (standardised) but change variables such as the proximity and uniform of the authority figure
L: Allowed Milgram to test which variables affect obedience the most to gain a better understanding

Question 6

Evaluate Research into the Situational Variables Affecting Obedience
- Limitations

Answer 6

P: can be criticised for lacking ecological validity
E: took place in artificial laboratory setting so doesn’t reflect obedience in real life
E: for example people may respond differently to figures of authority in real life situations such as in response to police or a manager
L: findings cannot be generalised to real life situations of obedience
E: however similar research like Bickman (1974) is ecologically valid and made the same conclusions as milgram

P: artificial setting of the laboratory and artificial task (administering electric shocks is not a common event) may encourage demand characteristics
E: ppts may have realised the set up was fake and were simply behaving as they thought they were expected to by obeying (please-you effect)
E: evidence for this comes from Orne who suggested ppts didn’t believe the electric shocks were real and therefore were not really obeying the researchers demands to hurt the learner
L: research may lack internal validity (not measuring true behaviour)

P: criticised for using deception
E: ppts we’re deliberately misled regarding the true nature of the experiment
E: evidence for this comes from the fact Milgram led the participants ti believe that the electric shocks were real when they were not. Furthermore, the ppts were denied informed consent as they could not have known about the true nature of the study until afterwards in the debrief
L: goes against the ethical code of conduct
E: Milgram wouldn’t have been able to obtain realistic results if he hadn’t used deception