Obedience: Situational Variables Flashcards
Name the 3 situational variables.
Proximity, location, uniform
What is proximity?
How close the learner is to the teacher.
When the learner and teacher were separated by a wall, what was the obedience rate?
65%
When the teacher and learner were in the same room, what did the obedience rate fall to?
40%
In a touch proximity variation where the teacher forced the learners hand onto a shock plate, what did obedience fall to?
30%
When the experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone, what did obedience rates fall to?
20.5%
Why is obedience higher when the teacher and leaner are further away?
The teacher is able to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
What is location?
The place the study takes place in.
Where did the study originally take place?
At Yale University, in a prestigious lab environment.
Where did the location variation study take place?
In a run down office building.
What did obedience to 450v in the location variable fall from and to?
Obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%
Why did obedience change when location changed?
PPTs still recognised the experiment as scientific but obedience fell because the experimenter did not share the legitimacy of his authority with the setting.
What did the experimenter wear in the original study and why?
A grey lab coat as a symbol of authority.
In the uniform variation, what did the experimenter wear instead of the lab coat?
Ordinary clothes.
What percentage did obedience fall to in the uniform variation?
20%
Why are we more likely to obey authority figures in a uniform?
We see their authority as legitimate.
Explain the strength of situational variables being backed up by other research.
Explain Bickman’s security guard, milkman and man in a suit study.
What did they find about obedience?
A field experiment by Bickman had 3 confederates dress up, 1 as a security guard, the next as a milkman and the final in a suit and tie. The confederates asked people walking by to do tasks such as picking up litter or give them money for the parking meter. Results found that people were 2x likely to obey the person in the guard uniform than the person in the suit and tie. This research shows that situational variables have a strong influence on obedience.
Explain the strength of Milgram’s research being replicated in other cultures.
Miranda, a Spanish researcher, found obedience rates at what percentage? What type of validity does this provide Milgram’s study with?
Why did Smith and Bond suggest that replications are not always valid?
Why can’t we apply Milgram’s findings to all cultures?
For example, Miranda replicated the experiment using Spanish students and found that obedience rates were high at 90%. This suggests that Milgram’s research has high external validity. However, Smith and Bond have suggested that his research isn’t as valid as we think, as all replications but 2, (which occurred in India and Jordan) have been done in western cultures, where people have similar attitudes to authority, therefore it may not be appropriate to say that Milgram’s research applies to all cultures.
Explain the limitation of PPTs possibly being aware that the experiment was faked.
Which variable did Milgram say seemed unrealistic?
Orne and Holland said the study lacked which type of validity?
What might PPTs have displayed due to the unrealistic nature of the study?
Therefore, we cannot conclude whether obedience is g_________ or are playing along with the situation.
This is especially true in the experiments with variations as PPTs may have been able to work out the extra manipulation. An example of this is the uniform variation, where even Milgram said this was unrealistic. Orne and Holland criticised the study for this, and suggested the study lacks internal validity. PPTs may have displayed demand characteristics as a result, therefore it will be difficult to say whether results show genuine obedience or whether PPTs were going along with the situation.
Explain the limitation of situational variables providing an alibi for evil behaviour.
Why did Mandel say that behaviour may be offensive to holocaust survivors?
Milgram also ignores the role of what type of factors on personality? - What does this imply about the Nazis?
The situational perspective has been criticised by David Mandel who argues that its an ‘alibi for evil behaviour’. In his view, its offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milgram’s explanation’s also ignores the roles of dispositional factors (such as personality), implying the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control.
