Obedience: Situational Variables Flashcards
What was the proximity variation in the study?
Teacher and Learner were in the same room
How did obedience change when the Teacher and Learner were in the same room?
It dropped from 65% to 40%.
What happened in the touch proximity variation?
The Teacher had to physically place the Learner’s hand on a shock plate, reducing obedience to 30%.
What happened in the remote-instruction variation?
The Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. Obedience dropped to 20.5%, and participants often pretended to give shocks.
Why does decreased proximity reduce obedience?
It allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Where was Milgram’s baseline study conducted?
Yale University.
What happened when the study was conducted in a run-down building?
Obedience dropped to 47.5%.
Why does location affect obedience?
A prestigious setting (like a university) adds legitimacy and authority, making obedience more likely.
What uniform did the Experimenter wear in the baseline study?
A grey lab coat.
What happened when the Experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person in everyday clothes?
Obedience dropped to 20%
Why does uniform affect obedience?
Uniforms symbolize legitimate authority, making people more likely to obey. Without a uniform, the authority figure has less influence.
strength of situational variables
One strength is research support for the influence of situational variables.
Bickman’s (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/ tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands (e.g. pick up litter) to people on the streets of New York City.
People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard” than the “jacket/tie confederate
This shows that a Situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
strength (2) of situational variables
Another strength is cross-cultural replication of Milgram’s research.
Meeus and Raijmakers (1986) worked with Dutch participants, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees.
They found 90% obedience, and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present).
This shows that Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures.
limitation of situational variables
One limitation is low internal validity in the studies.
Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations (compared to baseline study) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation.
In the variation where the Experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out.
Therefore it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and ‘play-acted’ (i.e. were influenced by demand characteristics).
