obedience : situational variables

Question 1

what are the factors that affect obedience

Answer 1

proximity
location
uniform

Question 2

how does proximity affect obedience

Answer 2

Teacher and learner in the same room (conformity 65%–>40%)

Touch proximity where teacher had to force the learners hand onto a electroshock plate when he refused to answer (65%–>30%)

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions (eg teacher was less aware of the harm they are causing)

Question 3

how does location affect obedience

Answer 3

Run down block instead of yale university(65%–>47.5%)

The prestige of such location demands obedience and increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiment

Prestigious university gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority–> more obedient as they assume the experimenter also share this kind of legitimacy and authority

Obedience was still quite high because of the scientific nature of the experiment

Question 4

how does uniform affect obedience

Answer 4

Participants obeyed more when experimenter wore a lab coat as a symbol of his authority

In one variation the experimenter was called away at the start of the experiment because of a phone call, the role of experimenter was replaced by an ordinary member of the public(a confederate) in everyday clothes instead of a lab coat

Obedience rate dropped (65%–>20%)

Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority, we accept that someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience as their authority is legitimate

Question 5

strength of situational variables of obedience

Answer 5

+ other studies have also demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience
- bickman had three confederates dress in different outfits (jacket and a tie, milkman and a security guard), confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform different tasks
-found that participants were 2x as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie
- supports the view that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience

-

+ findings have been replicated in other cultures
-Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than milgrams study to study obedience in Dutch participants. Participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate desperate for a job.

-90% participants obeyed

-Replicated forced proximity when the person giving the orders is not present, obedience decreased dramatically

-Suggests that milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or males but are valid across cultures and apply to females too

Question 6

weakness of situational variables of obedience

Answer 6

-low internal validity
- Participants may have been aware the procedure was fake

• Orne and holland (1968) pointed out that it is even more likely in his variations due to the extra manipulation of the variables
• Eg when experimenter is replaced by a member of the public, even milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth
• Hence in all of milgram’s studies it is unclear whether the findings were due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just played along

-
counterpoint to cross cultural replication

• Replications of study are not very cross-cultural

-Smith and bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in non-western countries, India and Jordan; the others like Spain and australia are all not that culturally different from america

-Hence it would be inapporpriate to conclude that milgram’s findings(including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures