obedience - situational variables Flashcards
location, uniform & proximity
which situational variables did milgram investigate
- location
- proximity
- uniform
obedience rate in original experiment
65%
obedience rate when venue moved to seedy offices in nearby town (location)
47.5%
reason for obedience rate decrease when location changed
- less legitimacy/authority associated with environment compared to prestigious university
- obedience rate still high due to ‘scientific’ nature of procedure
proximity variations tested by migram
- teacher/learner in same room
- teacher forced learner’s hand onto place
- experimenter left room & instructed from another room via telephone
- obedience rate when teacher paired with assistant (confederate) who threw the switches for the shocks
obedience rate when teacher/learner in same room (proximity)
40%
obedience rate when teacher had to force learner’s hand onto plate for electric shock (proximity)
30%
reason for obedience rate decrease when proximity increased by forcing learners hand onto plate
teacher (participant) couldn’t psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions
obedience rate when experimenter left room & instructed from another room via telephone (proximity)
20.5%
obedience rate when teacher paired with assistant (confederate) who threw the switches for the shocks (proximity)
92%
obedience rate when an ordinary person wearing a lab coat replaced the experimenter (uniform)
20%
reason for obedience rate decrease when uniform of authority figure changed
the authority figure didn’t represent a symbol of authority so it was not legitimate and did not have the power to punish/the right to expect obedience
AO3 +) research to support influence of situational variables on obedience
E:
- bickman (1974) conducted field experiment in NY
- 3 confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/tie, milkman & security guard)
- asked people to perform certain tasks (eg. pick up litter, hand over coin for parking meter)
- found people were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket/tie
T: shows that situational variables have a powerful effect on obedience
AO3 +) cross-cultural replications of milgram’s research
-) counterpoint
E:
- Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) studied obedience in dutch participants
- he ordered them to say stressful things to an interviewee (confederate) desperate for a job
- 90% of the participants obeyed
- also studied proximity & obedience decreased significantly when person giving orders wasn’t present
T: suggests milgram’s findings aren’t limited to america/men but can be applied to women/those from other cultures
HOWEVER: replications of milgram’s research aren’t very cross-cultural as smith & bond (1998) identified only 2 replications between 1968 & 1985 which occured in india and jordan (culturally different to US) whilst the other countries involved are very similar to US (eg. australia, spain)
AO3 -) participants may have been aware the procedure was faked
E:
- this was criticised by orne & holland (1968) regarding milgram’s baseline study, but pointed out this was more likely in variations due to extra manipulation of variables
- eg. even milgram recognised that replacing the experimenter with a ‘member of the public’ may have caused the participants to realise the true aims
T: unclear whether findings in milgram’s studies are due to operation of obedience or because participants saw through deception & responding to demand characteristics
