Obedience - Situational Variables Flashcards
define situational variables
features of immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour
such as proximity/location/uniform
the alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality
define proximity
the physical closeness / distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
also refers to the physical closeness of the teacher to the victims in Milgram’s studies
define location
the place where an order is issued
the relevant factor that influences obedience is the status / prestige associated with the location
define uniform
people in position of authority have a specific outfit symbolic to their authority (police officers, judges)
indicates that they are entitled to expect our obedience
after Milgram’s baseline study, what did he consider?
the situational variables on obedience
in the baseline study what was proximity like?
the teacher could hear the learner but not see him
what happened in the proximity variation?
the teacher and learner were in the same room
the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
what happened in the ‘touch proximity’ variation?
the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ if he refused to place it there after giving the wrong answer
obedience rate dropped further to 30%
what happened in the ‘remote instruction’ variation?
the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone
obedience levels reduced to 20.5%
the participants also frequently pretended to give shocks
what did the decreased proximity allow ?
it allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
- e.g. when the teacher and learner were physically separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to a person
so they were more obedient
where did Milgram conduct a variation study?
in a run down office block rather than in the prestigious yale university setting of the baseline study
in this location, obedience fell to 47.5%
explanation of change in obedience for location?
the prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority
why were participants more obedient in this location - yale?
as they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected
what was obedience like in the office block?
still quite high because participants perceive the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure
what did the experimenter wear in the baseline study?
a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority
in one variation what happened with the uniform?
the experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient phone call at the start
the role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat
what happened to the obedience rates?
they dropped to 20% which is the lowest of all variations
explain why obedience dropped due to uniform?
uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority
we accept that someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate
someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
what is a strength of the study?
other studies have demonstrated that the influence of situational variables on obedience
what was this other experiment ?
a field experiment done by Bickman (1974) in new york, he had 3 confederates in different outfits :
- jacket and tie
-milkman’s outfit
-security guard
what did the confederates do?
individually stood in a street and asked passers to perform tasks like picking up litter or coins for parking
what were the outcomes of the study?
people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as the security guard than the one in the jacket and tie
therefore what does this support?
it supports the view that situational variables , such as uniform , does have a powerful effect on obedience
what is another strength of Milgram’s research?
is findings have been replicated in other cultures
give and example of this?
Will Meesus and Quinton Raaijmakers -1986 - used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in dutch participants
what was the procedure?
participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate (confederate) for a job
what was the obedience rate?
90% of the students obeyed
what was also replicated like Milgram’s study?
proximity - when the person giving orders was not present , obedience decreased dramatically
therefore, what does this suggest?
that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women
what is a counterpoint of this idea?
replications of Milgram’s research is not very ‘cross cultural’
what did Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identify?
that just two replications between 1968 and 1985 took place in India and Jordan
both countries are culturally quite different from the US
but the other countries involved (Spain, Australia and Scotland) are culturally similar to the US - they have similar notions about the role of authority
what is one limitation of the study?
that participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked
what did Martin Oren and Charles Holland 1968 say?
they made this criticism that participants may know that it was faked
what do they also say?
they say that it is even more likely in his variations due to the extra manipulation of variables
a good example is the one where the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’
what did Milgram recognise?
that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth
therefore, why is this a limitation?
in Milgram’s studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through deception and faked their behaviour
