situational variables affecting obedience Flashcards
proximity, location and uniform
define situational variables
factors that can influence obedience. they are all related to external circumstances rather than to the personalities of the people involved
how did Milgram evaluate affects of proximity
in the orginal study the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms. the teacher could hear the learner but not see him
when the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40%
when the teacher had to put the learners hands on an elctroshock plate, obedince rates dropped from 65% to 30%
when the experimenter gave instructions over the phone to the teacher, obedience rates dropped to 20.5%
how did Milgram evaluate affects of location
the original study was conducted at Yale university
Milgram moved his study to a rundown building near Bridgeport → obedience rates fell from 65% to 47.5%
how did Milgram evaluate affects of uniform
Milgram made the experimenter play his role in normal clothes instead of the grey lab coat that he wore in the original study → obedience rates dropped to 20% - lowest obedience rates
research support
in a field experiment in NYC Bickman (1974) has 3 confederates dress in three different outfits → a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform
the confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter 0or giving the confederates a coin for parking meter
people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie → this supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situation factor likely to produce obedience
lack of internal validity
Orne and Holland’s criticism of Milgram’s original study was that many of the pps worked out that the procedure was faked
it is even more likely that pps in Milgram’s variations released this because of the extra manipulation → with the uniform variation even milgram realised that this situation was so contrived that some pps may have worked out the truth
this is a limitation → it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the pps saw through the deception and acted accordingly
cross cultural replication
the findings of cross cultural research have been generally supportive of Milgram
→
Meeus and Raajimakers (1986) worked with Dutch pps who were asked to say stressful things to interviewees during an interview and 90% of pps obeys this commander
Miranda et al (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. this suggests that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures and apply the female too
→ however Smith and Bond (1998) make the crucial point that most replication have taken place in Western, developed societies (Spain and Australia) these are culturally not that different from the USA so it would be premature to conclude that Milgram’s findings about situational variables apply to people everywhere
the dangers of the situational perspective
Milgram’s conclusions suggest that situational factors determine obedience. Mandel (1998) argues that this offers an excuse for genocide. situational explanations hugely oversimplify the cause of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors. this permits others the excuse of destructive behaviour in terms of ‘ I was just obeying order’
