Situational Variables To Obedience

Question 1

What did milgram do in 1974

Answer 1

He conducted several variations of his original study. He wanted to determine which situational variables leas to high levels of obedience, and which reduce obedience

Question 2

How does proximity affect

Answer 2

In the proximity variation both the teacher and the learner were seated in the same room. Obedience fell to 40%, as the participants could directly experience mr wallaces’s anguish

In the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force mr Wallace’s arm down onto a metal plate to administer the shock. Obedience was 30%

In the absent experimenter version, the experimenter left the room after giving instructions and gave order via telephone. Majority of participants missed out shocks or gave lower voltages than they were meant to. Obedience fell to 21%

Question 3

Location on obedience

Answer 3

In alternative setting variation the Experiment was carried out in a run down office downtown Bridgeport Connecticut by an experimenter wearing casual clothes. All other variations were carried out in Yale uni. Obedience rate was 48%. Participants reported the location of Yale university gave them confidence in the integrity of the experimenter. The lower status of the rundown office changed participants perception of the legitimacy of authority of the experimenter. The experimenter had higher authority at Yale so obedience was higher

Question 4

How does uniform affect obedience

Answer 4

Uniforms have a powerful impact on obedience. Uniforms are visible symbols of authority. Sometimes uniforms show that someone has power and status e.g. a police uniform, but some show no power, like prison uniform.

Bickman asked confederates to order passer-by to either pick up litter and put in the bin or step away from the bus stop. The confederates either wore guards outfit, milkman, or smart clothes. 90% obeyed guard and 50% obeyed civilian. A person in guards uniform is more likely to be obeyed

Question 5

Evaluation

Answer 5

• legitimacy of the setting may be more important than proximity. Hofling found that when confederates called nurses as an unfamiliar doctor named Dr Smith and ordered them to give potentially dangerous doses of an off stock drug, 95% of nurses did due to the legitimacy of the of the setting that the orders occurred in, suggesting this may be a more important situational factor in determining obedience

+ milgram research is highly scientific - factors in his proximity and location experiments were highly controlled for, apart from the independent variable to see what effect this variable would have on obedience. He did thi on 1000 participants in total suggesting that his researches is replicable and valid

• however Mandem argues that using these situational variables almost makes them an excuse or ’alibi’ for evil Behaviours. He said that these variables are feeble excuses to Holocaust survivors, saying that the reasons the Nazis committed heinous crimes was because of situational factors beyond their control. How would we react to that as a survivor of the Holocaust

Finally Orne and Holland pointed out that the results of the original study may be subjected to demand characteristics. They deduced that participants worked out that it was a set up, especially through the use of the 4 prompts. The experiment was so contrived that some of the participants could have worked out the truth and didn’t obey full up to 450volts. So we don’t know if real obedience to authority occurred or if it was DC