Situational Explanations for Obedience Flashcards
State the 3 situational explanations for obedience:
- Proximity
- Uniform
- Location
Explain Proximity:
- Refers to distance between people, objects or situations
- Individual in closer proximity to authority figure - higher likelihood of obedience due to greater fear of consequences if person obeys
What were Milgram’s findings to do with proximity?
Obedience was high in Milgram’s original study when experimenter was in the same room as ppt (65%) - reduced when Milgram asked experimenter to give instructions via telephone (20.5%)
Explain Location:
- The location/setting of situation/environment can affect the ways a request is viewed - and therefore the likelihood of obedience. Can happen in 2 ways:
– Location can ENHANCE legitimacy of authority of authority figure- increasing obedience (e.g. prestigious or official location)
– Can either be appropriate for authority figure to give orders in or not. (e.g. obey ticket inspector on train, but not in a school)
What were Milgram’s findings to do with Location?
Milgram conducted a variation of his experiment in a RUNDOWN OFFICE BLOCK. - 48% of ppts obeyed to 450v compared w 65% in prestigious university (Yale). The prestige of the uni increased the power and authority of the experimenter + amount of trust the ppts felt in them - leading to higher obedience rates
Explain Uniform:
- Refers to clothing worn by authority figure - affects our perception of them + influences whether or not we would obey
- Official looking uniform + if uniform is appropriate for current setting (e.g. police wearing uniform) enhances person’s legitimacy of authority - more likely to obey
Bickman’s field experiment (1974) + UNIFORM:
In New York - he asked passers-by to complete tasks such as picking up rubbish or lending money to a stranger for a parking meter. In one condition, when experimenter dressed as security guard, 92% of ppts obeyed the request to lend money. In another condition, experimenter wore normal clothes - 58% obeyed the request - shows how important uniform can be in increasing obedience rates.
Weakness of situational variables - evidence refuting role of proximity.
Hoffling - over 95% of nurses showed obedience and followed unreasonable orders of dispensing double maximum dosage of unknown drug, despite instructions being delivered over phone. - refutes low obedience rates found by Milgram in his telephone condition - demonstrates that if order comes from legitamate figure of authority (i.e. a doctor) - influence of legitimacy of authority overrides impact of proximity IRL. Shows that Milgram overestimated extent to which proximity influences obedience. Decreases validity of research.
Strength of research into situational variables - high levels of control.
Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time, such as location, while keeping other variables the same (e.g. using the same confederate as the authority figure) to see the effect it would have on obedience. SB: allows direct comparison between levels of obedience in the two locations studied, and a C+E rs to be established. Thus we can conclude that the decrease in obedience in the run-down block variation was due to change in location and not extraneous variables.
Increases validity of Milgram’s research on situational variables.
Limitation of uniform as variable that affects obedience - ethical problems with supporting research.
Studies like Bickman failed to provide ppts w/ informed consent. Ppts were unaware they r in experiment - could not provide informed consent.
Research also used deception. Ppts believed the confederate was real authority figure who had real social power. Although these breaches of ethical guidlines were done to gather valid results and avoid demand characteristics, still reduce credibility of the research.
A strength of uniform as an explanation of obedience-supporting evidence.
Bushman (1988) carried out a similar field experiment to Bickman using a female confederate who told subjects to give change to a stranger for a parking meter. When the woman was wearing a police-style uniform obedience rather were significantly higher than when she was wearing casual clothing or business attire. This supports the role of uniform as it shows that people are more likely to obey someone when they are wearing clothing associated with being a legitimate authority figure. Also, as only the police-style uniform increased obedience, it shows that the uniform needs to be appropriate for the setting to lead to greater obedience. Thus, increasing the validity of uniform as a factor that affects obedience.
