obedience - situational variables

Question 1

how many situational variables did milgram investigate & name

Answer 1

3
- location
- proximity
- uniform

Question 2

obedience rate in original experiment

Answer 2

65%

Question 3

obedience rate when venue moved to seedy offices in nearby town (location)

Answer 3

47.5%

Question 4

reason for obedience rate decrease when location changed

Answer 4

less legitimacy/authority associated with environment compared to prestigous university
obedience rate still high due to ‘scientific’ nature of procedure

Question 5

obedience rate when teacher/learner in same room (proximity)

Answer 5

40%

Question 6

obedience rate when teacher had to force learner’s hand onto plate for electric shock (proximity)

Answer 6

30%

Question 7

reason for obedience rate decrease when proximity increased

Answer 7

teacher (participant) couldn’t psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions

Question 8

obedience rate when teacher given support from 2 other teachers (confederates) who refuse to obey

Answer 8

10% - less pressure to conform

Question 9

obedience rate when experimenter left room & instructed from another room via telephone (proximity)

Answer 9

20.5%

Question 10

obedience rate when teacher paired with assistant (confederate) who threw the switches for the shocks

Answer 10

92%

Question 11

obedience rate when an ordinary person wearing a lab coat replaced the experimenter (uniform)

Answer 11

20%

Question 12

reason for obedience rate decrease when uniform of authority figure changed

Answer 12

the authority figure did now not represent a symbol of authority so it was not legitimate and did not have the power to punish/the right to expect our obedience

Question 13

evaluation of milgram’s situational variables - AO1

Answer 13

milgram
- outline the 3 variables
- explain each one
- outline some of obedience drop rates & explain why

Question 14

evaluation of milgram’s situational variables - AO3

Answer 14

+)
P: other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience
E: eg. bickman (1974) - in a field experiment in NY - found uniform highly influences naive participants obedience as people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the confederate in a jacket/tie or milkmans outfit
T: shows that situational variables (eg. uniform) affect willingness to obey

+)
P: practical application
E: used to explain explanations for cyber bullying. for example, people hide behind their computer (abuser) so they don’t witness the consequences of their actions (proximity)
T: allows for positive change in society due to application of research

+)
P: replicated in other cultures
E: eg. meeus & raaijmakers (1986) studied obedience in dutch participants. he ordered them to say stressful things to an interviewee (confederate) and 90% obeyed. they also studied proximity & found when the person giving the orders wasn’t present, obedience declined
T: shows milgram’s findings are not only applicable to americans/men but can be applied to women/those from other cultures
COUNTERPOINT TO^
-)
P: (of supporting research) majority of replications of milgram’s research are not very cross-cultural
E: eg. smith & bond (1998) researched only 2 different replications between 1968-1985 in india & jordon. however, the other countries are culturally similar to the US (eg. spain, scotland)
T: findings cannot be generalised to people of every culture

-)
P: low internal validity - participants aware procedure was faked
E: eg. orne & holland (1968) made this criticism of milgram’s baseline study as they said it is even more likely in his variations due to extra manipulation of variables eg. when the experimenter was replaced with a member of the public
T: in all of milgram’s studies, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception & are responding to demand characteristics