Milgrams Situational Variables Flashcards
Name the 3 situational variables of obedience
-Proximity
-Location
-Uniform
Describe the impact proximity had on obedience
-Increased proximity to the learner: Obedience levels fell from 65% to 40% when both the teacher and learner were sat in the same room
-Increased proximity to the learner: When the teacher forced the learners hand onto a shock plate obedience levels fell from 65% to 30%
-Decreased proximity to authority figure: When the experimenter left and gave further orders over the phone, obedience levels fell from 65% to 20.5%
Describe the impact location had on obedience
-original study was conducted in a psychology lab at Yale and many of the PPT commented how the location of the study gave them confidence in the integrity (honesty) of the people involved
-Milgram then moved study to run down office with no obvious connection to Yale and obedience rates dropped from 65% to 48% of people delivering the 450v maximum shock
Describe the impact uniform had on obedience
-The original study was directed by an experimenter in a white lab coat which is a symbol of authority
-In this variation the experimenter was called away by a phone call and a member of the public became the experimenter who was wearing ordinary clothes
-Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 20% which was the lowest of all variations
Showing uniform had the biggest impact on obedience
Give 2 strengths of milgrams research into situational variables
-Supporting research
-replicated in other cultures
Explain how Milgrams research into situational variables had supporting research
-Bickman 1974 found in his experiment in NYC people obeyed instructions to pick up litter more often whe the confederate was in a security guard uniform than when they were wearing a jacket and tie
-This increased the validity of Milgrams research into situational variables (uniform) as Bickman found the same effect in his study
-This increases our confidence in Milgrams research as its likely to be true therefore it can contribute to our understanding on human behaviour
Explain how Milgrams research into situational variables was replicated in other countries
Meeus 1986- conducted a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch PPTs. The ppt were ordered to say very stressful things in a job interview to confederates that they thought were desperate for a job
-They found obedience of 90% and this also supported milgrams findings into proximity as when the person giving orders wasn’t present obedience decreased
-strength because it shoes milgrams findings are replicable in other cultures, suggesting findings are generalisable so they value of the research increases
What are 2 limitations of Milgrams research into situational variables?
-All replications that supported milgrams findings in other cultures have been conducted in cultures which aren’t very different from America
-Lacking internal validity
Explain how findings in other cultures have been conducted in cultures very similar to America, and why is this a limitation?
Bond and smith 1998- found that between 1988 and 1985 only 2 replications were conducted in cultures that aren’t very different to America, being India and Jordan
-This is a limitation because it suggests findings of milgrams study may only be true for certain cultures (individualists) but evidence has shown behaviour can be different in collectivist countries
-This means the findings cannot be generalised so it reduces the usefulness of the research
How may Milgrams study into situational variables lack internal validity?
One and Holland 1968- criticised study fr being obviously fake and saying that adding in extra situational variables makes the study less believable
-eg) in the uniform condition it’s unlikely that an experimenter will leave and be replaced by a member of the public.Therefore it’s unlikely PPT will see this as a true scenario, Milgram also agreed with this
-Limitation because if PPtT guess the true aim of the study they’re more likely to respond to demand characteristics and act different to how they would in real life
-We’re less confident the effects observed are true so it limits the usefulness and the extent that the research can contribute to our understanding of SI
