Obedience - Situational Variables and Explanations Flashcards
Situational variables - Milgram
Proximity:
- Milgram study = teacher and learner in same room
- obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40%
- further drop off during the touch approximate variation when the teacher had to force the learners hand on the shock plate as a result of incorrect answer
- obedience rates dropped to 30%
Explanation:
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves form the consequences of their actions. E.g teacher and learner separated - teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so they were more obedient
Location:
- Variation in a run down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale university setting of the baseline study
- obedience fell to 47.5%
Explanation:
The university environment gave milgrams study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location as they assumed that the experimenter shared this legitimacy of authority and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still Hugh in the office block because the participants perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure.
Uniform:
- Experimenter wore grey lab coat as a symbol of authority
- in one variation the experimneter was called away because of an inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure
- The role of the experimenter was taken over by an “ordinary member of the public” (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat
- The obedience rates dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations
Explanation:
Uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (e.g it is granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.
Situational variables evaluation
Evaluation:
- Research support
One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience.
In a field experiment in New York City, Leonard Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in
different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. The confederates
individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform 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 dressed in jacket and tie.
This supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on
obedience.
- Cross-cultural replications
Another strength of Milgram’s research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures.
For instance, Wim Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than
Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things
in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed. The
researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders
was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.
This 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. - Counterpoint However, replications of Milgram’s research are not very ‘cross-cultural. Peter Smith
and Michael Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in
‘non-Western’ countries (India and Jordan). Others countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) are
not that culturally different from the United States. For example they have similar notions about the role
of authority.
Therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings (including those about
proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures. - Low internal validity
One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked.
Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline study. They point out
that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables. A good example
is the variation where the 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.
Therefore, 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 and just ‘play-acted’
(i.e. responded to demand characteristics).
Evaluation extra
- the danger of the situational perspective
Milgrams findings support a situational explanation of obedience (proximity, location and uniform are all aspects of the situation)
But this perspective has been criticised by David Mandel (1998) who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazi’s were simply obeying orders. Milgram’s explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors (such as personality), implying that the Nazi’s were victims of situational factors beyond their control.
Situational explanations - Agentic State
Agentic state:
Stanley Milgram’s initial interest in obedience was sparked by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961
for war crimes.
Eichmann had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he
was only obeying orders.
This led Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority occurs
because a person does not take responsibility. Instead they believe they are acting for someone
else, i.e. that they are an ‘agent. An ‘agent’ is someone who acts for or in place of another.
An agent is not an unfeeling puppet - they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they
realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
Autonomous state:
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state. ‘Autonomy’ means to
be independent or free. So a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their
own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency is called the agentic shift. Milgram (1974) suggested that
this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. The authority figure has
greater power because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy. In most social groups,
when one person is in charge others defer to the legitimate authority (see below) of this person and
shift from autonomy to agency.
Binding factors:
Milgram observed that many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to
do so.
He wondered why they remained in an agentic state.
The answer is binding factors - aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling. Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim (‘he was foolish to volunteer”) or denying the damage they were doing to the victims.
Situational variables - Legitimacy of authority
society is structured in a hierarchical way
- therefore people in certain positions hold authority over us = e.g police officer, security guard, teachers, parents
- the authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed in society - most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over another because this allows society to function smoothly
- one consequence of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others
- we learn to accept legitimacy of authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally
Destructive authority:
- problems arise when legitimacy of authority becomes destructive
- history has shown/proven that authority figures can use their power irresponsibly (Hitler, Stalin etc)
- destructive authority was obvious in Milgrams study, when the experimenter used prods to order participant to behave in ways that went against their consciences
Situational Variables - Agentic State Evaluation
Research support:
- Milgrams own studies support the role of agentic state
- participants resisted giving shocks until the experimenter said “I’m responsible if the participants is harmed”
this shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own actions/behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent, as Milgram suggested
A limited explanation;
- does not explain many research findings found
Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobson’s study found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an overdose/excessive amount drug dose to a patient, even though the doctor was an authority figure. but almost all of the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of milgrams participants
This suggests that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
Evaluation Extra:
- an incident in the second war involving German reserve police battalion 101
- these men shot civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having orders to do so (they were told they could be assigned to other roles/duties if they preferred)
- therefore they behaved autonomously
