Situational variables affecting obedience

Question 1

There are three situational factors in obedience for Milgram (1963) experiment what are they?

Answer 1

Proximity, Location, Power of uniform.

Question 2

Outline proximity as a situational factor in obedience for Milgram Experiment (1963).

Answer 2

• with learner in same room levels of obedience dropped to 40%
• when teacher had to force learners hand onto shock plate (touch proximity cond) levels dropped 30%
• when authority figure left room (exp abs cond) levels dropped 21%

Question 3

Outline location as a situational factor in obedience for Milgram Experiment (1963).

Answer 3

• Yale uni- ppts reported gave conf and integrity of study.
• More likely to obey.
• when study moved to run down offices with no affiliation to Yale obedience levels dropped 48%

Question 4

Outline the power of uniform as a situational factor in obedience for Milgram Experiment (1963).
Bushman (1988)

Answer 4

• uniforms influence obedience because easily recognisable and convey authority and power.
• Bushman found people more likely to obey a researcher in police than businessman.

Question 5

Outline the procedure of Milgram (1963) experiment.

Answer 5

• Diff cond
• ppts acted as teacher, conf= learner
• teacher tested word pairs, administoring shocks errors.
• increased 15 v increments.
• In voice feedback cond, learner another room stopped responding 315v.
• experiment prods to try keep teacher delivering shocks.

Question 6

Outline the findings of Milgram (1963) experiment

Answer 6

* All ppts went to 300v
12.5% stopped there
65% delivered max shock 450 v.*

Question 7

A03- Milgram study suffered lack of realism.
**Orne and Holland (1968)+ Perry (2012) **

Answer 7

P- O+H claimed ppts learned to distrust experimenters as real purpose disguided.
E- P discovered milgram ppts skeptical about if shocks real. Shock real less likely to obey experimenter
L- Challenges validity of M study, suggesting real life less likely to obey destructive authority figure.

Question 8

A03- M study no historical validity.

Answer 8

**P- ** Study dismissed having no relevence to modern life as carried out 50 years ago.
E- However, Research anaylsis of obedience studies from 1961-1985, found no relationship between year of publication and levels of obedience.
**L- ** Suggests M are still relevant today as they were in 1960s so have historical validity.

Question 9

A03- Situational V - Proximity- increasing p doesnt always lead to decreased obedience. Mandel (1998)

Answer 9

**P- ** M claims M findings about influence of proximity are not bourne out by RL events.
E-- A study of reserve police battalion 101 found close physical proximity to their jewish victims didnt make men less obedient.
**L- ** M concludes using obedience as explanation for these atrocities masks real reasons behind such behaviours.

Question 10

A03 PLUS- Situational V - Location- High levels of obedience not surprising Fromm(1973)

Answer 10

**P- ** F claims that as M ppts knew part of scientific experimeny made more likely to obey.
E-- Experimenter represents prestigious institution (science), and representation of science, F suggests 65% obedience less suprising than 35% disobedience
**L- ** As a result, shouldn’t generalise from M lab experiment to events such as behaviour of perpetrators in genecides such as holocaust.