situational variables affecting obedience

Question 1

milgram’s study

Answer 1

40 participants
teacher tested learner’s (confederate) ability to remember word pairs - wrong answer = increasingly strong electric shock - 15 volts - 450 volts. learner gave mainly wrong answers and received fake shocks in silence until 300 volts - pounded on wall and gave no response to next question, from 315 volts on did nothing.
if teacher asked to stop, experimenter said ‘you have no choice, you must go on’

Question 2

milgram’s study findings

Answer 2

65% continued to max shock level, all participants went to 300 volts, only 5 stopped there

Question 3

proximity

Answer 3

teacher and learner in same room - obedience level fell to 40%.
extreme variation - teacher required to force learner’s hand onto shock plate - obedience dropped to 30%.
when experimenter left room only 21% continued to max shock level

Question 4

location

Answer 4

conducted in yale uni - gave participants confidence in integrity of people involved and many indicated they wouldn’t have shocked learner if study had been carried somewhere else.
study in run down office - obedience rates dropped slightly to 47%

Question 5

evaluation - bushman - research support for power of uniform

Answer 5

uniforms convey power and authority
bushman - carried out study where female researcher, dressed either in police uniform, business executive or beggar stopped people in street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter
uniform - 72% obeyed
business executive - 48%
beggar 52%
when interviewed after, people claimed they obeyed woman in uniform as she appeared to have authority

Question 6

evaluation - lacks internal validity

Answer 6

orne & holland - PPs learned to distrust experiments - know true purpose of study may be disguised

milgram’s assistant divided PPs into ‘doubters’ and ‘believers’ - latter group most likely to disobey and give low intensity shocks - challenges validity of study and suggests when faced with reality of destructive obedience, people more likely to disobey authority figure

Question 7

evaluation - historical validity

Answer 7

blass - statistical analysis of obedience studies between 1961 and 1985, correlational analysis relating each study’s year of publication and amount of obedience - no relationship - later studies found no more or less obedience than earlier ones.

burger - found levels of obedience almost identical to those found by milgram - milgram’s findings still apply today so have historical validity

Question 8

evaluation - research support for power of uniform

Answer 8

durkin and jeffery - demonstrated young children’s understanding of police authority was dominated by visual cues, specifically presence of uniform:
used illustrated scenarios and asked children aged 5-9 years to identify who was able to make an arrest - children selected man wearing police uniform.
Younger children more likely to select non policeman in police uniform than policeman out of uniform - children’s initial perceptions of authority dominated by superficial aspects of appearance which are more easily accessible than socially conferred status

Question 9

power of uniform

Answer 9

in original study, experimenter wore lab coat - symbol of authority

milgram carried out variation where experimenter was called away due to a phone call at start of study and was replaced by ‘ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes

obedience dropped to 20%