Explanations for obedience: situational variables affecting obedience as investigated by Milgram. Flashcards
What situational variable has the definition:the closeness of the learner and the teacher ?
Proximity.Baseline study=Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him.Proximity variation=Teacher and Learner were in the same room,obedience rate went from 65% to 40%.Touch proximity
variation=Teacher forced the Learner’s hand onto a shock plate,obedience rate was
30%.Remote-instruction variation=
Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by
telephone,obedience rate was 20.5%,participants often pretended to give shocks.Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions.
What situational variable has the definition:the setting
Location. The study was conducted in a run-down building and at Yale University(the baseline).Obedience dropped to 47.5%.Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority(obedience was expected).
What situational variable has the definition:Communicates authority
Uniform.Baseline study=Experimenter wore a grey lab coat(uniform).In one variation, he was called away by a phone call at the start. His role was taken over by an ‘Ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations.Uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.
What research supported the influence of uniform in obedience?
Bickman’s (1974)confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/ tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands (e.g. pick up litter) to people on the streets of New York City. People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate.Shows that a situational variable,uniform,has a powerful effect on obedience.
What study showed cross-cultural application of proximity?
Meeus and Raaimakers (1986)
ordered Dutch participants to say stressful comments to interviewees. They found 90% obedience,obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present). This shows that Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures.
What’s a counterpoint to the cross cultural application advantage of proximity
Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications took place in societies (e.g. Spain, Australia), culturally not that different from the US=we can’t conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all cultures.
What was the limitation of the studies about the influence of situational variables on obedience?
Low internal validity-Orne and Holland (1968) suggested variations (compared to baseline study) were more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation. In the variation where the Experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out.It’s unclear whether results are due to obedience or because participants saw the deception and ’play-acted’ (influenced by demand characteristics).
What’s a limitation of Milgrams conclusion “situational variables determine obedience”
Mandel (1998)argues this offers an excuse for genocide.
Situational explanations oversimplify causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors. This permits others to excuse destructive behaviour in terms of ‘I was just obeying orders’.
