social influence: Milgram's situational variations into obdeience Flashcards
what were the 3 variables Milgram studied
- location
- uniform
- proximity
Where was the original study and variation conducted?
OG: Yale University
Variation: a run-down building
how much did obedience decrease in the run-down building?
obedience fell to 47.5%
Why did obedience decrease in the run-down building?
The experimenter had less authority > The status of the location changed the participant’s perception of the legitimacy of the authority of the investigator.
Higher authority at Yale led to higher obedience levels.
What did the experimenter wear in the original experiment?
A lab coat
To indicate legitimate authority.
What happened when the experimenter was called away?
The role was taken over by an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothing
Did obedience increase or decrease when the experimenter was replaced?
Decreased to 20%
this was the lowest of all the variations > this is because the individual did not have legit authority
Where were the teacher and learner in Milgram’s original study?
In different rooms
The teacher could hear the learner but not see him.
What was the obedience rate when the teacher and learner were in the same room?
Dropped from 65% to 40%
What happened in the touch proximity condition?
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an electric shock plate > Obedience dropped to 30%
What was the obedience rate when the experimenter gave instructions by phone?
Dropped to 20.5% > participants pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones than they were intended to do.
Why does close proximity to the person being harmed reduce obedience?
It puts a greater moral strain on the individual > This moral strain leads to reduced obedience.
AO3: internal validity
Milgram’s situational variations have high internal validity
He systematically altered one variable at a time to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience. All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over again with more than 1000 participants in total.
STRENGTH as we can establish a strong cause and effect relationship so we can be certain of the effect each situational factor has on our obedience levels.
AO3: external validity
Milgram’s variations lack external validity.
The task was to electrocute the learner every time they got the answer incorrect. This is a weakness because the task does not resemble real life orders from an authority figure, as people are usually asked to follow more subtle instructions.
WEAKNESS as we cannot generalise whether situational factors such as location would affect obedience levels in real
life.
AO3: real life application
Milgram’s research into situational factors cannot be used to explain real life events such as the holocaust.
German soldiers obeyed the orders of Hitler and killed over 10,000 Jews.
The holocaust suggests that proximity does not affect obedience levels. Since the mass killing of Jewish people was undertaken in close proximity, suggesting they did not experience moral strain.
WEAKNESS as this suggests that situational factors do not affect obedience levels.
AO3: research to support
In a field experiment, Bickman had three confederates dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, a milkman outfit and a security guard uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie.
STRENGTH as this shows that **uniform can have a powerful impact on obedience levels **
