Situational variables affecting obedience

Question 1

Situational factors affecting obedience

Answer 1

Proximity
Location
The power of uniform

Question 2

Proximity

Answer 2

With the learner in the same room, levels of obedience dropped to 40%

• When the teacher had to force the learners hand onto a shock plate levels dropped further to 30%

When the authority figure left the room (experimental absent condition) levels of obedience dropped to just 21%

Question 3

Location

Answer 3

Because the studies were conducted at Yale univesity, p’s reported that this gave them confidence in the integrit of the study

• as a result this made them more likely to obey
• When the study was moved to run-down officed with no affiliation to Yale, obedience levels dropped to 48%

Question 4

The power of uniform

Answer 4

Uniform influence obedience becuase they are easily recongnisea ble and convey power and authority

Bushman (1988) found people were more liekly to obey a reseacher in a police-style uniform than dressed as a bussiness executive.

Question 5

Milgram (1963)

Procedure

Answer 5

Thy study a series of different conditions, each varying some aspect of the situation. P’s always acted as the teacher while confederate learner.

• Teacher tested the learners ability to remove word pairs adminstering shocks for any errors. These increased 15-volt increments
• In the ‘voice-feedback’ condition, the learner was in another room and stopped responding at 315 v. The experimenter used ‘prods’ to try and keep the teacher delivering the shocks

Question 6

Milgram (1963) Findings

Answer 6

Milgram asked various groups to predict how far p’s would go before refusing to continue. Predictions were that very few would go before refusing to continue. Predictions that very few would beyond 150v.

• However all p’s went to at least 300v with only 12.5% stopping there
• Contrary to predicitons, 65% delievred the maximum shock level at 450 v.

Question 7

AO3

Question 8

Milgram’s study suffered from a lack of realism

Answer 8

P: Orne and Holland (1968) claimed that p’s have learned to distrust experimentes as the real purpose of a study is often disguised

E: Perry (2012) discovered that many of Milgram’s p’s were skeptical about whether the shocks were real. Those who believed the shocks were real were less likely to obey the experimenter.

E: This challenges the validity of Milgram’s study, suggesting that in real life people would be more likely to disobey a destrucitve authority figure.

Question 9

Milgrams study has been found to have historical validity

Answer 9

P: This study might be dismissed as having no relevance to modern life as it was carried out over 50 years ago.

E: However, Blass (1999), in an analysis of obedience studies carried out between 1961 and 1985, found no relationship between the year of publication and levels of obedience.

E: This suggests that Milgram’s studies are still as relevant today as they were in the 1960s.

Question 10

Proximity: Increasing proxmity does not always lead to deceased obedience

Situational variables Evaluation

Answer 10

P: Mandel (1998) claims that Milgram’s findings about the influence of proxmity on obedience are not borne out by real-life events.

E: A study of Reserve Police Battalion 101 found that close physical proximity to their jewish victims did not make these men less obedient

E: Mandel concludes that using ‘obedience’ as an explanation for these atrocities masks the real reasons behind such behaviours.

Question 11

Location: High levels of obedience were not surprising

Answer 11

P: Fromm (1973) claims that as Milgram’s p’s knew they were part of a scientific experiment, this made them more likely to obey.

E: Because the experimenter represents a prestigous instituion, and the experiment is a representative of science, fromm suggests that 65% obedience was less suprising than 35% disobedience.

E: As a result, we should not generalise from milgram’s laboratory to events such as the behaviour of perptrators in genocides such as the holocaust.

Question 11

Location: High levels of obedience were not surprising

Answer 11

P: Fromm (1973) claims that as Milgram’s p’s knew they were part of a scientific experiment, this made them more likely to obey.

E: Because the experimenter represents a prestigous instituion, and the experiment is a representative of science, fromm suggests that 65% obedience was less suprising than 35% disobedience.

E: As a result, we should not generalise from milgram’s laboratory to events such as the behaviour of perptrators in genocides such as the holocaust.