Situational Variables Flashcards
What are situational variables?
External factors which influence levels of obedience
Define the three situational variables Milgram implemented in his obedience study variations
Proximity - The physical closeness or distance between the person receiving the order and the authority figure issuing it
Location - The place where an order is issued
Uniform - Indicate a person’s status or power within a social context
Describe proximity variations and effect
- Teacher and learner in the same room - obedience dropped to 40%
- Teacher holding learners hand on shock plate - obedience dropped to 30%
- Experimenter giving orders over the phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequence of their action.
Describe location variation and effect
When held in a run down office rather than the prestigious Yale, obedience dropped to 47.5%
The perceived status, prestige and reputation of the location influences levels of obedience
Describe uniform variation and effect
The experimenter was replaced midway through the experiment with an ordinary member of public dressed in everyday clothes rather than an experimenter in a lab coat - obedience dropped to 20%
We accept that someone in a uniform has legitimate authority and thus are entitled to obedience
Outline three conditions in which obedience would be maximised
- The person giving orders is wearing a uniform
- The person giving orders is within a close proximity
- The location where the orders are being given is prestigious
2 strengths of situational variables and a counter
Research support for the power of uniform:
Convey power and authority. Bushman (1988) - female researcher dressed in either police style uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar. She stopped people in the street and told them to give to change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter. When she was in the uniform 72% of the people obeyed, whereas obedience rates were much lower when she was dressed as a business executive (48%) or as a beggar (52%). When interviewed after people
claimed they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority.
Cross-culture replication
Meeus and Raajimakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. They also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity – when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased to 36%
COUNTER - This replication and other have taken place in Western developed societies which are not culturally dissimilar from the USA so it would be premature to conclude that his findings apply to all people across cultures.
2 Limitations of situational variables
Lacks internal validity :
Extra manipulation makes it more likely the participants would work out the aim. For example, Milgram recognised when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, the situation was so contrived the participants may have worked out the aim. It is thus unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience, or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly therefore responding to demand characteristics.
Offers an “obedience alibi”:
Mandel (1988) argues that situational variables offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for engaging in evil behaviour – in his view it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control. It does not consider intrinsic or extrinsic factors which could be at play which resulted in the evil behaviours during the Holocaust
