Social influence - situational variables Flashcards
Situational variables
Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour (such as proximity, location and uniform)
The alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality
Three situational variables
Proximity
Location
Uniform
Proximity
The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
Location?
The place where an order is issued
Uniform
People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority e.g police officers and judges
Proximity in terms of obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)
In the baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but could not see him
In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
Touch proximity - teacher forced the learner’s hand onto the shock plate. Obedience rate was 30%
Remote instruction - experimenter left the room and gave instructions by the telephone. Obedience rate was 20.5% and participants often pretended to give shocks
Explanation for proximity on obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
Location in terms of obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)
Study was conducted in a run down building rather than Yale university (as in the baseline)
Obedience rate dropped to 47.5%
Explanation of location on obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)
Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected)
Uniform in terms of obedience?
(Milgram’s baseline study)
In the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat
In one variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient’ phone call, at the start of the procedure
His role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes
Obedience rate fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations
Explanation of uniform in terms of obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)
A uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience
Two strengths of situational variables on obedience?
Research support
Cross cultural replications
EVALUATION; Research support
Bickman’s conducted a field experiment where confederates stood on the street and asked members of the public who were passing by to perform a small task
- The outfit that the confederate was wearing varied from a smart suit jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit or a security guard’s uniform
- Members of the public were twice as likely to obey the order given by the ‘security guard’
This supports Milgram’s idea that uniform adds to the legitimacy of authority figure and situational variables does have a powerful effect on obedience
EVALUATION: Cross Cultural Replication
Another strength of Milgram’s research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures
e.g in a Dutch study by Meeus and Raaijmakers, ordered participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone
Milgram’s findings concerning proximity were also replicated. When the person giving orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically
This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not limited to just American males but are valid across cultures and apply to females too
COUNTERPOINT TO CROSS CULTURAL REPLICATION
However replications of Milgram’s research are actually not very cross cultural
Smith and Bond identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in non western countries, India and Jordan
Other countries involved such as Spain and Australia, are not that culturally different from the US. e.g they have similar notions about the role of authority
Therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to all people in all (most) cultures
Two limitations of situational variables on obedience
Low internal validity
The danger of the situational perspective
EVALUATION: Low internal validity
Orne and Holland suggested the variations (compared to baseline study) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation
In the variation, the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, and even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants known it was fake
Therefore it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or that the participants displayed demand characteristics and did what they thought they needed to in order to please the experimenter
EVALUATION: Milgram’s research supports a situational perspective in obedience
However Mandel argues that this perspective provides an excuse for destructive obedience as people can excuse (alibi) their antisocial behaviour because it isn’t their fault
Milgram’s perspective overlooks the role of dispositional factors (e.g your personality characteristics). Some people may be more obedient - either as a consequence of genetics or because of their upbringing. This may be just as important in determining whether people obey authority
This implies that Milgram’s explanation based solely on situational factors is likely to oversimplify the causes of obedience, and Mandel further argues that ultimately attributing the Holocaust to situational pressures while ignoring the role of disposition is offensive to survivors
