LS7 - Explanations Of Obedience (Situational Variables)

Question 1

Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Answer 1

Proximity
Location
Uniform

Question 2

Proximity

Answer 2

How close the authority figure is to the participant and whether this has an effect on obedience, or if the participant is physically close to the victim. In Milgram’s original study, the teacher and learner were in an adjoining room, which dropped obedience rates from 65% to 40%.In another variation the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ then he refused to answer a question, in this touch proximity condition the obedience rate dropped to 30%. In another variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone, in this remote instruction condition the outcome was a further reduction in obedience to 20.5%.

Question 3

Location

Answer 3

Milgram changed the location from a prestigious (Yale) university to a run-down building. Obedience dropped from65% to 47.5%.

Question 4

Uniform

Answer 4

In the original study, the experimenter the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority, and in the variation a confederate in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat acted as the experimenter. Obedience levels dropped to 20%.

Question 5

Strengths Of Milgram’s Variations

Answer 5

Research Support.
Cross Cultural Replications.

Control Of Variables In Milgram’s Variations.

Question 6

Research Support (+)

Answer 6

Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational variables on obedience. Bickman (1974), the power of uniforms. 3 male researchers gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians, one was dressed in a suit, a milkman’s uniform or a guard’s uniform. An example of some of the orders were Pointing to a bag on the street and saying “pick up this bag for me” and nodding in the direction of a confederate saying this fellow is over parked at the meter, but doesn’t have any change. Give him a dime. 80% obeyed to the guard and 40% obeyed to the milkman or civilian. The 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.

Question 7

Cross Cultural Replications (Milgram’s Variations)

Answer 7

Miranda Et Al (1981) found high obedience rates in Spanish students (90%) suggesting that Milgram’s conclusions aren’t limited to American males. Smith and Bond (1998) pointed out that Milgram’s study was replicated in developed societies i.e Spain & Australia meaning Milgram’s findings about proximity and location may not be applied across the world.

Question 8

Control Of Variables In Milgram’s Variations (+)

Answer 8

Variations for proximity and location were highly controlled as he only altered that one variable and kept the rest of the variables constant. He replicated his variations on 1000 pps in total suggesting Milgram’s research is not only valid but also replicable meaning that stronger conclusions can be drawn about situation variables and obedience.

Question 9

Weaknesses For Milgram’s Variations

Answer 9

Lack Of Internal Validity.

The Obedience Alibi.

Question 10

Lack Of Internal Validity (-)

Answer 10

Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s original study on the basis that the pps had worked out the whole procedure was a ‘set-up’ and thus fake and the pps may have realised this through the four prompts used. A uniform change decreased obedience rates to 20% which made Milgram recognise the situation as so forceful and thus fake. This is a criticism since we don’t know if real obedience to authority or if it was just simply demand characteristic.

Question 11

The Obedience Alibi (-)

Answer 11

Milgram’s findings support situational variables an an explanation of 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.