Social Influence 2 Flashcards
List proximity variations used by Milgram
proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same
room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
touch proximity: the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate dropped
to 30%.
‘remote-instruction: the experimenter
left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience
rate dropped again to 20.5%. The participants also frequently
pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones when they were
Location variation- Milgram
The location of the obedience study was a run-down building
rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (Yale University).
Obedience fell to 47.5%. This indicates that the experimenter had
less authority in this setting.
Uniform variation- Milgram
Originally, experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform) but in variation they were called away bc of phone call and ordinary person took over in everyday clothes.
obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations.
This suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority
symbol and a cue to behave in an obedient manner.
Evaluation of situational variables
+ There is research support for the influence of situational variables.
+ Milgram’s research has been replicated in other cultures.
+ Milgram’s research has control of variables.
Example of research support for the influence of situational variables
Bickman looked at the effect of authority on obedience (confederate dressed in jacket/tie, milkman or security guard). The confederate asked passers-by to give coin for parking meter
-people 2x likely to obey ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’
How do Milgram’s variation lack internal validity
Orne & Holland:
Ptp in variations even more likely to realise procedure faked bc of extra experimental manipulation
-MoP variation, could’ve ‘play acted’
Evidence of Milgram’s research being replicated in other cultures
Miranda et al:
Found over 90% obedience in Spanish students. Milgram’s findings not limited to American males.
CP- Western culture, not that different
How does Milgram’s research have control of variables
Systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience
Other variables keep constant as study replicated w over 1000 ptp
How do Milgram’s conclusions provide an ‘obedience alibi’
The findings are an ‘excuse’ for obedience- suggesting that it is the situation not the person who is responsible
-offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest Nazis simply obeyed order + were victims of situational factors beyond their control; dangerous bc ignores discrimination/ racism
Agentic state (social-psychological factor)
Occurs when we act on behalf of another person
-feel no personal responsibility
Autonomous state
Being independent
-behave according to own principles + feels responsible
Agentic shift
When a person defers to the authority figure
-occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure; they have power bc of social position
Binding factors
Aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore/ minimise the effects their behaviour
Reduce the ‘moral strain’ of obeying immoral orders.
Done by e.g. denying damage to victims or shifting responsibility to the victim
Criticisms of situational variables
- Milgram’s variations may lack internal validity
- Milgram’s conclusions provide an ‘obedience alibi’
Legitimacy of authority (Social-psychological factor)
We obey those at top of social hierarchy
Authorities have legitimacy through society’s agreement
We hand over to authority figures due to trust and through upbringing
Charismatic leaders use their legitimate powers for
destructive purposes
