Explanations Of Obedience - Situational Variables Flashcards
What are the situational variables affecting obedience
Proximity
Locations
Uniform
Explain variable proximity and results
The term proximity refers to how physically close the teacher and learner are and the teacher and experimenter are.
In other words, how physically close the authority figure is to the participant and whether this has an effect on obedience. Also if the participant is physically close to the victim.
In Milgram’s original study, the teacher and learner were in an adjoining room, so the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, they were in the same room.
In this condition, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
In an even more dramatic variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when he refused to answer a question. In this touch proximity condition, the obedience rate dropped further to 30%.
In a third proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. In this remote instruction condition time proximity was reduced. The outcome was a further reduction in obedience to 20.5%
Explain variable location and results
In another variation, Milgram changed the location of the obedience study. He conducted a variation in a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (Yale University). Obedience levels fell to 47.5%. This is still quite a high level of obedience but is less than the original 65% in the baseline study.
Explain variable uniform and results
In the original baseline study – the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform) Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%, the lowest of the variations.
Strengths of milgrams variations
Research support – other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational variables on obedience. For example with regards to uniform, another study to support the power of uniform was carried out by Bickman (1974) hree male researchers gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in New York. The researchers were dressed in one of three ways: in a suit (jacket and tie), a milkman’s uniform, or a guard’s uniform.
They gave various orders for example:
• Pointing to a bag on the street – “Pick up this bag for me”
• Nodding in the direction of a confederate – “This fellow is over parked at the meter, but doesn’t have any change. Give him a dime”.
Bickman found that participants were most likely to obey the researcher dressed as a guard (80%) than the milk man or civilian (40%). This study supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factor that is likely to produce obedience.
Cross cultural replications – Milgram’s research and his variations have been replicated in other cultures as well. For example, Miranda et al (1981) found high obedience rates in Spanish students (90%). This suggests that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males but apply to females and other cultures too (Milgram did repeat his study on American females and found the same level of obedience as his males participants)
Nevertheless, Smith and Bond (1998) did point out that Milgram’s study was replicated in developed societies which are similar to the US such as Spain and Australia meaning that we may not be able to apply these findings across all countries since developing countries will have different norms and values to developed countries. This then means that Milgrams findings about proximity and location may not be applied across the world.
Control of variables in Milgram’s variations – A strength of Milgram’s variations especially for proximity and location were highly controlled as he only altered that one variable but kept the rest of the variables constant to see what effect this would have on obedience. In fact he replicate his variations on 1000 participants in total – this suggests that Milgram’s research is not only valid (measuring the IV) but also replicable (it can be repeated) meaning that stronger conclusions can be drawn about situation variables and obedience.
Control of variables in Milgram’s variations – A strength of Milgram’s variations especially for proximity and location were highly controlled as he only altered that one variable but kept the rest of the variables constant to see what effect this would have on obedience. In fact he replicate his variations on 1000 participants in total – this suggests that Milgram’s research is not only valid (measuring the IV) but also replicable (it can be repeated) meaning that stronger conclusions can be drawn about situation variables and obedience.
Weakness of milgrams study
Lack of internal validity : Orne and Holland criticised Milgam’s original study on the grounds that the participants had worked out that the whole procedure was a ‘set-up’ and thus fake and the participants may have realised this through the four prompts used. In fact, in the variations of Milgram’s research when the experimenter is replaced by ‘a member of the public’ obedience rates went down to 20% - even Milgram recognised the situation as so contrived (forceful thus fake) that some of the participants may have worked out the truth (hence why 35% did not shock to the full 450 volts). This is a criticism since we do not know if real obedience to authority occurred or if it was just simply demand characteristics – i.e. the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly!
The obedience alibi: It is without doubt that Milgram’s findings support situational variables as an explanation of obedience for example, the proximity of the authority figure such as the experimenter, the location of the study and uniform are all situational factors that influence obedience. However, David Mandel (1998) argues that using these situational variables almost makes them an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil or bad behaviour. In his opinion, he sees these variables as a feeble excuse to the survivors of the holocaust i.e. saying that the reasons why the Nazi’s committed this atrocity was due to situational factors beyond their control! How would we react to that if we were a survivor of the holocaust?
