Obedience: SItuational variables Flashcards
Situational variables
SItuational variables
After Milgram conducted his 1st study on obedience, he carried out large number of variations to consider situational variables that might lead to more/less obedience
Proximity
SItuational variables
Teacher & Learner were in same room
Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
In touch proximity variation, Teacher forced learner’s hand onto electroshock plate if he refused to put it there himself
Obedience dropped to 30%
In remote instruction variation, Experimenter left room & gave instructions over the phone
Obedience fell to 20.5%
Ppts frequently pretended to give shocks
Proximity explanation
SItuational variables
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
When teacher & learner were separated, teacher was less awae of harm they were causing
Location
SItuational variables
Conducted variation in run-down office block rather than prestigious Yale Uni setting of baseline
Obedience fell to 47.5%
Location explanation
SItuational variables
Prestigious uni environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy & authority
Ppts were more obedient in this location because they perceived that Experimenter shared this legitimacy & that obedience was expected
Obedience still quite high in office block because ppts perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure
Uniform
SItuational variables
In baseline, Experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority
In one variation, Experimenter called away because of inconvenient phone call at start of procedure
Role of Experimenter was taken over by ‘ordinary member of public’ (a confed) in everyday clothes
Obedience rate fell to 20%, lowest all of variations
Uniform explanation
SItuational variables
Uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority
We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authoirty is legitimate
Evaluation: Research support
SItuational variables
Strength: studies demonstrate influence of situational variables on obedience
In field experiment, Bickman had 3 confeds dress in diff outfits - jacket & tie, milkman outift & security guard uniform
Confeds stood on street & asked passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over coin for paking meter
People were 2x more likely to obey confed in security guard uniform than confed in jacket & tie
Therefore, situational variables, such as uniform, have powerful effect on obedience
Evaluation: Cross-cultural replications
SItuational variables
Strength: findings replicated in other cultures
Meeus & Raaijmakers used more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch ppts
Ppts ordered to say stressful things in interview to a confed desperate for a job
90% of ppts obeyed
Also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity
When person giving orders was not present, obedience dropped dramatically
Therefore, Milgram’s findings are not limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures & apply to women
Evaluation: Cross-cultural replications (Counterpoint)
SItuational variables
However, replications of Milgram’s research are not very cross-cultural
Smith & Bond indentified 2 replications that took place in India & Jordan - both countries culturally diff to USA
Whereas other countries involved (i.e. Spain & Australia) are culturally quite similar to USA
Therefore, may not be appropriate to conclude Milgram’s findings apply to people in all or most cultures
Evaluation: Low internal validity
SItuational variables
Limit: ppts may hve been aware procedure was fake
Orne & Holland made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline
Point out its even more likely in variations due to extra manipulation of variables
E.g. where experimenter is replaced by member of public
Even Milgram recognised this situation was so contrived some ppts may have worked out the truth
Therefore, in all of Milgram’s studies it is unclear whether findings are genuinely due to operation of obedience or because ppts saw through deception & just play-acted
