Factors effecting obedience - Situational factors/explanations Flashcards
What are the situational factors effecting obedience
- Proximity
- Location
- Uniform
How does Proximity effect obedience and how did Milgram change his study to prove this
The closer we are to the consequences of our actions the less likely we are to obey, as we can see the potentially negative/harmful effects of our behaviour
When the teacher and participant were in the same room obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
How does location effect obedience and how did Milgram change his study to prove it
The legitimacy of a location plays a role. We have to believe that a location is a genuine setting in order for obedience to take place
When Milgram’s study took place in a run down place instead of Yale university obedience fell to 48% from 65%
How does uniform effect obedience and what study supports this
Research suggests we are more likely to obey a person in uniform rather than a person not wearing uniform
Bickman supports this
What was Bickman’s study
Bickman was interested if people were more likely to obey someone if they wore a uniform in comparison to street clothes. He conducted a field experiment in New York.
Bickman has 3 confederates one in a jacket and tie, a milkman’s uniform and a security guards uniform. They asked passers by to perform simple tasks such as picking litter or giving a coin for the parking meter.
It was shown people would obey someone in a security guards uniform (92%) than obeying someone in ‘normal clothes’ a suit and a jacket (49%)
What are the situational explanations to obedience
- Antigenic state
- Legitimacy of authority
What is the opposite of being in an antigenic state / how is an antigenic state formed
An autonomous state is shifted into being in a Antigenic state by antigenic shift
What is an antigenic state and autonomous state
Autonomous state shifted into antigenic state
. Autonomous state - ‘Independent; free’
- Free to behave according to own principles
- Sense of responsibility for own actions
- Less likely to obey
. Antigenic state - Authority figure is responsible
- Acting for the authority figure
- More likely to obey as we can deny personal responsibility as we can shift it onto the person who told is to do it
- More anxiety, distress when obeying
What is the legitimacy of authority
An authority figure must have some kind of social power over us, which is usually the power to punish. We have to perceive the person as genuine in order to follow their instructions
What would you use to evaluate the situational variables affecting obedience
- Research support for uniform increases obedience
- Lack of internal validity
- cross cultural support
- High control of variables
How would you evaluate the situational variables affecting obedience
(Research support for uniform)
There is strong supporting evidence on uniform affecting obedience
- Bickman conducted a field experiment in New York where 3 confederates dressed up as either a milkman, Security guard or just in a suit and tie. They then asked orders to random members of the public such as picking up a piece of little or lending a coin for the parking meter.
- Results shown people were more likely to obey the confederate when they were dressed as a security guard (76%) compared to a regular suit and tie (30%)
- Shows uniform acts as a symbol of authority making people more likely to obey commands suggesting uniform has powerful effects on obedience
How would you evaluate the situational variables affecting obedience
(Lack of internal validity)
Some of the variations may lack in ternal validity because the procedures became increasingly unrealistic
- Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s studies arguing participants were likely to guess the true aims of the research especially when the experimenter was wearing ordinary clothes.
- This raises the possibility that participants were not truly obeying an authority figure but instead were responding to demand characteristic’s and behaving in a way they though was expected of them
How would you evaluate the situational variables affecting obedience
(Cross cultural support increases Generalisability)
Milgram’s studies have been replicated across different cultures enhancing external validity
- Miranda et al found obedience rates were 90% amongst Spanish students when using a Milgram style procedure supporting the facts that factors such as proximity, uniform and location can influence obedience across cultures
- However most have been replicated in western nations such as America and Europe which are more individualist society’s which may limit generalisability
How would you evaluate the situational variables affecting obedience
(High control of variables - high realism)
- Milgram’s variations have demonstrated high degrees of experimental control allowing clear altered one situational factor at a time while keeping all other procedure and instructions the exact same.
- This means the changes in obedience can be confidently attributed to the specific situational factors being manipulated rather than other confounding variables making Milgram’s conclusions about the power of situational factors highly credible
How would you evaluate the explanations of obedience
- Research support for the agentic state
- Agentic state cannot explain all obedience
- Legitimacy of authority explains cross-cultural differences
- Real world application to war crimes
How would you evaluate the explanations of obedience?
(Research support for the Agentic state)
Supported by Milgram’s observations during his research
- Many participants shown clear signs of moral strain e.g. hesitation, nervous laughter but still continued to obey the authority figure
- This suggests they may have entered an agentic state viewing themselves as people just carrying out orders rather than acting on their own free will
- Supports Milgram’s claim that the agentic state is a powerful mechanism that allows people to obey destructive commands while reducing personal responsibility
How would you evaluate the explanations of obedience?
( Agentic state cannot explain all obedience )
Agentic state cannot explain why some participants in Milgram’s study disobeyed authority figures while having the same situational pressures
- Around 35% of Milgram’s participants disobeyed the authority figure and didn’t go all the way to 450V . This suggests factors such as personality or moral reasoning may also play a role in obedience
- Also in Hoflings study of Nurses there was little evidence to show anxiety or distress when obeying challenging the idea the agentic state always causes distress.
- Suggests the agentic explanation may be incomplete as it doesn’t account for individual differences in obedience behaviour
How would you evaluate the explanations of obedience?
(Legitimacy of authority explains cross-cultural differences)
Legitimacy of authority helps to explain cross cultural variations in obedience
- Kilham and Mann found much lower levels of obedience in Australia (16%) compared to Mantell’s findings of 85% in Germany when using Milgram style procedures
- This can be explained by differing cultural attitudes towards authority as in some cultures e.g. Germany authority is viewed as more legitimate and should be obeyed without question.
- This suggests the Legitimacy of authority has high external validity
How would you evaluate the explanations of obedience?
( Real world application to war crimes )
Legitimacy of authority can help explain real-life examples of destructive obedience
- Kelman and Hamilton argue that events such an massacres in the Vietnam war, where American soldiers killed hundred of unarmed civilians is due to legitimacy of authority
- Soldiers are trained to obey commands without question especially from high ranking officers
which can lead to destruction when they abuse their power
- This real world application increases the power and relevance of the Legitimacy of authority beyond lab/ controlled settings
