obedience: situational variables ao3

Question 1

Strength - research support

Answer 1

P: Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment where confederates stood on the street and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task.
E: For example, picking up a piece of litter. The outfit that the confederate was wearing varied from a smart suit jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guard’s uniform.
E: Members of the public were twice as likely to obey the order given by the ‘security guard’ then they were to other two uniforms.
→ L: This supports Milgram’s idea that a uniform adds to the legitimacy of the authority figure and is a situational variable which increases obedience levels. This idea can explain why obedience rates dropped from 65 to 20% in his uniform variation.

Question 2

Strength - cross cultural replication

Answer 2

P: Another strength of Milgram’s research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures.
E: For example, in a Dutch study, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) ordered participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job → 90% of the participants obeyed.
E: Milgram’s findings concerning proximity were also replicated. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.
L: 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.
M

Question 3

Counterpoint to milgrams cross cultural replication

Answer 3

P: However, replications of Milgram’s research are actually not very cross-cultural.
E: Smith and Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in non-western countries, India and Jordan.
• Other countries involved often (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) are not that culturally different from the United States.
E: For example they have similar notions about the role of authority
L: 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.

Question 4

Weakness - low internal validity

Answer 4

P: One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was fake.
Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline study.
E: 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.
L: Therefore, in all of Milgram study is it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just responded to demand characteristics.

Question 5

Weakness: danger of the situational perspective

Answer 5

P: Milgram’s research supports a situational perspective in obedience.
However, Mandel (1998) argues that this perspective provides an excuse for destructive obedience, as people can excuse their antisocial behaviour because it isn’t their fault,
E: Furthermore, Milgram’s perspective overlooks the role of dispositional factors (e.g. your personality characteristics). Some people may be more obedient - either as a consequence of genetics or because of their upbringing. This may be just as important in determining whether people obey authority.
L: This suggests that Milgram’s explanation based solely on situational factors is likely to oversimplify the causes of obedience, and Mandel further argues that ultimately attributing the Holocaust to situational pressures while ignoring the role of disposition is offensive to survivors.