Social influence - situational variables

Question 1

Situational variables

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Three situational variables

Answer 2

Proximity

Location

Uniform

Question 3

Proximity

Answer 3

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to

Question 4

Location?

Answer 4

The place where an order is issued

Question 5

Uniform

Answer 5

People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority e.g police officers and judges

Question 6

Proximity in terms of obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Explanation for proximity on obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)

Answer 7

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

Question 8

Location in terms of obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)

Answer 8

Study was conducted in a run down building rather than Yale university (as in the baseline)

Obedience rate dropped to 47.5%

Question 9

Explanation of location on obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)

Answer 9

Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected)

Question 10

Uniform in terms of obedience?
(Milgram’s baseline study)

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Explanation of uniform in terms of obedience
(Milgram’s baseline study)

Answer 11

A uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience

Question 12

Two strengths of situational variables on obedience?

Answer 12

Research support
Cross cultural replications

Question 13

EVALUATION; Research support

Answer 13

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

Question 14

EVALUATION: Cross Cultural Replication

Answer 14

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

Question 15

COUNTERPOINT TO CROSS CULTURAL REPLICATION

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Two limitations of situational variables on obedience

Answer 16

Low internal validity

The danger of the situational perspective

Question 17

EVALUATION: Low internal validity

Answer 17

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

Question 18

EVALUATION: Milgram’s research supports a situational perspective in obedience

Answer 18

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