obedience: situational variables

Question 1

what was proximity variation?

Answer 1

• in milgram’s baseline study, T could hear L but not see him
• in proximity variation, T and L were in the same room
• obedience rate dropped from original 65% to 40%

Question 2

what was the touch proximity variation?

Answer 2

• T had to force L’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer
• obedience dropped to further 30%

Question 3

what was the remote instruction variation?

Answer 3

• E left room and gave instructions to T by telephone
• obedience reduced to 20.5%
• pps also frequently pretended to give shocks

Question 4

explain the effect of proximity on obedience

Answer 4

• decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
• eg. in baseline study when T and L were physically separated, T was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so were more obedient

Question 5

what was the location variation?

Answer 5

• study conducted in run-down office block rather than in the prestigious yale university
• obedience fell to 47.5%

Question 6

explain the effect of location of obedience

Answer 6

• the prestigious university environment gave milgram’s study legitimacy and authority
• pps were more obedient in this location because they perceived that E shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected
• however, obedience was still quite high in the office block because pps perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure

Question 7

what was the uniform variation?

Answer 7

• in the baseline study, E wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority (a kind of uniform)
• in one variation, E was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of the procedure
• the role of E was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat
• obedience dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations

Question 8

explain the effect of uniform on obedience

Answer 8

• uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority
• we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (ie. it is granted by society)
• someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience

Question 9

summarise the % of fully obedient participants in different variations

Answer 9

• baseline study at yale university - 65%
• location: change of location to run-down office - 47.5%
• proximity: T and L were in the same room - 40%
• touch proximity: T forces L’s hand onto plate - 30%
• remote instruction: E gave orders by phone - 20.5%
• uniform: E played by ‘member of public’ - 20%

Question 10

evaluation: research support that demonstrates the influence of situational variables on obedience (uniform)

Answer 10

• in a field experiment in nyc, leonard bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit and security guard’s uniform
• confederates individually stood in the street and asked passer-bys to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter
• people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie
• this supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience

Question 11

evaluation: findings have been replicated cross-culturally

Answer 11

• meeus and raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than milgram’s to study obedience in dutch pps
• pps were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job
• 90% of pps obeyed
• researchers also replicated milgram’s findings concerning proximity
  > when person giving orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically
• this suggests that milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too

Question 12

evaluation: replications of milgram’s research are not very ‘cross-cultural’

Answer 12

• smith and bond (1998) only identified 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in india and jordan
  > both countries are culturally quite different from the US
• other countries are involved (eg. spain, australia, scotland) are culturally quite similar to US (ie. they have similar notions about the role of authority)
• therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that milgram’s findings, including those about proximity, location and uniform, apply to people in all or most cultures

Question 13

evaluation: low internal validity as pps may have been aware procedure was fake

Answer 13

• orne and holland (1968) made this criticism of milgram’s baseline study
• they point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables
• for example, when E was replaced by a ‘member of the public’, even milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some pps may have worked out the truth
• therefore, in all of milgram’s studies it is unclear whether findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the pps saw through the deception and just acted (ie. responded to demand characteristics)

Question 14

evaluation: the danger of the situational perspective

Answer 14

• milgram’s research findings support a situational explanation of obedience (proximity, location and uniform are all aspects of the situation)
• mandel (1998) criticises this perspective on the basis that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour
• in his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the nazis were simply obeying orders
• milgram’s explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors (eg. personality), implying that the nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control