obedience- situational variables Flashcards
situational variables definition
features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour (such as proximity,location and uniform). the alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality
proximity definition
physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving and order to. also refers to the physical closeness of the teacher to the victim (learner) in Milgram’s studies
location definition
the place where an order is issued. the relevant factor that influences obedience is status or prestige associated with the location
uniform definition
people in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, for example police officers and judges. this indicates that they entitled to expect our obedience
why did Milgram do variations
to consider the situational variables that might lead to more or less obedience
what 3 situational variables did Milgram investigate
-proximity
-location
-uniform
what was the proximity of teacher an learner in baseline
teacher could hear the learner but not see him
how did Milgram vary the baseline to investigate proximity
teacher and learner were in the same room
results when teacher and learner were in the same room
obedience rate dropped to 40% (was originally at 65%)
how did Milgram vary investigation for touch proximity variation
teacher had to force Learner’s hand onto an electricshock plate if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer
results of touch proximity variation
obedience dropped to 30%
how did Milgram vary study for remote instruction (proximity) variation
experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone
results of remote instruction variation
obedience dropped to 20.5%. the participants also frequently pretended to give electric shocks
what 3 ways did Milgram vary proximity
-teacher and learner in the same room
-touch proximity
-remote instruction
explanation of results for proximity variation
-decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
-for example when the teacher and learner were physically separated (baseline), the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing another person so they were more obedient
how did Milgram vary location
conducted variation in a run-down office block rather than prestigious Yale university where the baseline study was
results of loction variation
obedience fell to 47.5%
explanation for results of location variation
-prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority. participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived the experimenter shared legitimacy and that obedience was expected. however, obedience was still quite high in the office block because participants perceived the scientific nature of the procedure
how did Milgram vary uniform
in the baseline, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. in one variation, the experimenter was called away at the beginning of procedure due to an inconvenient phone call. experimenter was taken over by an ordinary member of the public (confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat
results of uniform variation
obedience dropped to 20% which is the lowest of these variation
explanation for results of uniform variation
uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority. we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because there authority is legitimate. someone without uniform has less right to expect our obedience
strength of Milgram’s research on situational variables - research support
-other studies have demonstrated situational variables on obedience
-in a field experiment in New York City, Bickman 1974 had 3 confederates dress in different outfits- jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit and security guards uniform. the confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to do 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 in a jacket and tie –> supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience
strength of Milgram’s research on situational variables - cross-cultural replication
-Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures
-Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986 used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. MIlgram’s findings concerning proximity were also replicated as when a person giving orders is not present, obedience decreased dramatically –> suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to American or men, but valid across cultures and apply to women
limitation of Milgram’s research on situational variables - counterpoint to cross cultural replication
-replication of Milgram’s research are not very ‘cross-cultural’.
-Smith and Bond identified just 2 replication between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan - which are culturally different for US. other countries involved such as Spain, Australia and Scotland are culturally similar to US as have similar notions about role of authority –> may not be appropriate to conclude Milgram’s findings apply to people in most cultures (lack generalisability)
evaluation of Milgram’s research on situational variables -the danger of the situational perspective
-Milgram’s findings support a situational explanation of obedience
-this perspective has been criticised by Mandel 1998 who argues it offers an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour. in his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest Nazi’s were simply obeying orders. Milgram’s explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors such as personality, implying the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control
