Situation and culture

• Gradual commitment

  • people are more likely to obey if there is gradual commitment 
  • Binding relationship
  • Duty bound to continue if trivial requests are asked initially then requests increase 
  • E.g milgrams study with the voltage increasing
• Proximity

  • proximity, when distance increases obedience decreases, Latane uses the term immediacy meaning closeness in space and time
  • Physical distance, can act like a buffer to obedience 
  • Generator - a physical buffer (more inclined to use machinery rather than doing something by hand)
• Legitimacy 

  • status of authority 
  • Higher status of authority the higher obedience 
• Behaviour of others

  • exposure to disobedient role models decreases obedience 
• situational factors affecting obedience: Gradual commitment, Proximity, Legitimacy, Behaviour of others
• • Collectivist cultures:
  • value loyalty to the group, duty, interdependence and cooperation in pursuit of group goals. About ‘we’
• • Individualist cultures
  • values personal autonomous (responsible for oneself) and self-reliance. About ‘I’
• • Collectivist cultures: value loyalty to the group, duty, interdependence and cooperation in pursuit of group goals. About ‘we’
• • Individualist cultures: values personal autonomous (responsible for oneself) and self-reliance. About ‘I’
• • Hofstede 2017: identified six dimensions which allowed for comparison between countries regarding their cultural values
• • Hofstede 2017
  • identified six dimensions which allowed for comparison between countries regarding their cultural values
• • PDI refers to how accepting people are of hierarchical order and inequality in society. In high PDI cultures subordinates expect to be told when to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat 
• • We might expect cultures with high PDI would lead a person to be highly obedient as they expect subordinates to do as they are told while people from nations low in this dimensions might be more likely to show resistance or dissent 
• • PDI refers to
  • how accepting people are of hierarchical order and inequality in society. In high PDI cultures subordinates expect to be told when to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat 
• • high PDI
  • highly obedient as they expect subordinates to do as they are told while people 
• Low PDI

  • nations low in this dimensions might be more likely to show resistance or dissent 
• PDI

  Power dimension index
• The situational factor of proximity is supported by research in Milgram’s variation when the order was given by the experimenter over the phone.  This resulted in obedience to administer shocks up to 450v of only 22.5% compared with 65% in the baseline condition when the experimenter was present in the room.
• An experiment by Sedikides + Jackson 1990 

   where they tested how obedient people were towards being told not to lean on the railings. This was first tested by a zoo keeper in their uniform instructing people not to lean on the railings - the obedience was at 58%. Opposingly, when an ordinary person gave the instructions the obedience was 35%. 

   
• There is research supporting cultural differences in Obedience, e.g. Ancona and Pareyson (1968) carried out a replication of Milgram’s shock experiment in Italy with a sample of students and found 85% were obedient up to 450v.  In comparison, Shanab and Yahya (1977)  replicated Milgram’s obedience experiment in Jordan with a sample of children aged 6-16 and
• A  of research that supports the idea of a PDI index is Kilham and Mann. They replicated Milgrams’s baseline shock experiment they found there was overall 28% obedience in Australia which has a low power distance index of 36%, however when replicated in Poland Dolinski et discovered that obedience was 90% which has a medium high power distance index of 68%. 

   

   
• Blass (1999) calculated average obedience rate for 8 non-US Milgram replications finding a percentage of 66% compared 61% in US replications. Blass reports similar obedience across the world suggesting that Culture doesn’t affect Obedience and there is a universal obedience making the role of culture less clear.  Evidenced by fact that people from a individualist culture (Austria) had an obedience rate of 80% in Schurz replication 1985. the USA had a high obedience rate of 65% in Milgrams baseline study refuting the idea that individualist cultures are more likely to resist orders.

   
• Gupta (1983) replicated Milgram’s shock generator experiment in India where there is a PDI of 77%, they found a low obedience level of only 22 .5%. 

   
• However, there is refuting research that argues personality has the main impact on the perceived status of authority and the behaviour of others. For example, Elms and Milligram (1966) conducted research using 20 obedient and 20 disobedient participants from Milgram’s study. The 40 participants used the F-scale the results found were that the 20 obedient participants scored higher in the authoritarian personality test than the 20 defiant participants.
• An experiment by Sedikides + Jackson 1990 

   where they tested how obedient people were towards being told not to lean on the railings. This was first tested by a zoo keeper in their uniform instructing people not to lean on the railings - the obedience was at 58%. Opposingly, when an ordinary person gave the instructions the obedience was 35%.   However, 100% did not comply

   

   
• A refuting piece of research to the situational factor of proximity affecting levels of obedience would be Hofling’s experiment. Nurses were asked to administer a drug that was not on their ward list by an unknown doctor over the phone. The nurses were trained to not administer any drugs not on their ward list, not take orders from over the phone and not take orders from unknown doctors. Hofling found that 21/22 of the nurses obeyed these orders.