Obedience - Situational Variables

Question 1

define situational variables

Answer 1

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

Question 2

define proximity

Answer 2

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

Question 3

define location

Answer 3

the place where an order is issued

the relevant factor that influences obedience is the status / prestige associated with the location

Question 4

define uniform

Answer 4

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

Question 5

after Milgram’s baseline study, what did he consider?

Answer 5

the situational variables on obedience

Question 6

in the baseline study what was proximity like?

Answer 6

the teacher could hear the learner but not see him

Question 7

what happened in the proximity variation?

Answer 7

the teacher and learner were in the same room

the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

Question 8

what happened in the ‘touch proximity’ variation?

Answer 8

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%

Question 9

what happened in the ‘remote instruction’ variation?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

what did the decreased proximity allow ?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

where did Milgram conduct a variation study?

Answer 11

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%

Question 12

explanation of change in obedience for location?

Answer 12

the prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority

Question 13

why were participants more obedient in this location - yale?

Answer 13

as they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected

Question 14

what was obedience like in the office block?

Answer 14

still quite high because participants perceive the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure

Question 15

what did the experimenter wear in the baseline study?

Answer 15

a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority

Question 16

in one variation what happened with the uniform?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

what happened to the obedience rates?

Answer 17

they dropped to 20% which is the lowest of all variations

Question 18

explain why obedience dropped due to uniform?

Answer 18

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

Question 19

what is a strength of the study?

Answer 19

other studies have demonstrated that the influence of situational variables on obedience

Question 20

what was this other experiment ?

Answer 20

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

Question 21

what did the confederates do?

Answer 21

individually stood in a street and asked passers to perform tasks like picking up litter or coins for parking

Question 22

what were the outcomes of the study?

Answer 22

people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as the security guard than the one in the jacket and tie

Question 23

therefore what does this support?

Answer 23

it supports the view that situational variables , such as uniform , does have a powerful effect on obedience

Question 24

what is another strength of Milgram’s research?

Answer 24

is findings have been replicated in other cultures

Question 25

give and example of this?

Answer 25

Will Meesus and Quinton Raaijmakers -1986 - used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in dutch participants

Question 26

what was the procedure?

Answer 26

participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate (confederate) for a job

Question 27

what was the obedience rate?

Answer 27

90% of the students obeyed

Question 28

what was also replicated like Milgram’s study?

Answer 28

proximity - when the person giving orders was not present , obedience decreased dramatically

Question 29

therefore, what does this suggest?

Answer 29

that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women

Question 30

what is a counterpoint of this idea?

Answer 30

replications of Milgram’s research is not very ‘cross cultural’

Question 31

what did Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identify?

Answer 31

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

Question 32

what is one limitation of the study?

Answer 32

that participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked

Question 33

what did Martin Oren and Charles Holland 1968 say?

Answer 33

they made this criticism that participants may know that it was faked

Question 34

what do they also say?

Answer 34

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’

Question 35

what did Milgram recognise?

Answer 35

that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth

Question 36

therefore, why is this a limitation?

Answer 36

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