Bickman

• aim?

  degree of social power associated with different types of uniform
• hypothesis?

  member of public would obey more depending on amount of authority uniform has
• exp 1 experiment type?

  field experiment carried out on streets of New York
• exp 1 IV?

  type of uniform person was wearing
• exp 1 DV?

  whether people obeyed or not
• exp 1 experimental design?

  independent measures, where people were asked to do task by guard, milkman or pedestrian
• exp 1 sample?

  opportunity sample made up of 153 adults aged 18 - 61
• exp 1 confederates?

  4 white male aged 18 - 20, briefed to behave same way
• when was exp 1 conducted?

  1974, weekdays and mainly in afternoons
• what were people asked to do in exp 1?

  asked one of 3 things:

  * pick up paper bag from ground

  * give dime to stranger for parking

  * stand on other side of a bus stop pole that they were already standing at
• exp 2 experiment type?

  field experiment on streets of New York
• exp 2 IVs?

  * guard vs civilian uniform

  * surveillance vs non surveillance
• exp 2 sample?

  opportunity sample of 48 adults estimated to all be over age of 46
• exp 2 confederate task?

  give dime to stranger for parking
• exp 2 differences in what confederate did?

  in half the situations, confederate stood by ppt and in other half, walked away after asking
• exp 3A method?

  questionnaire with 29 different scenarios to do with obedience
• exp 3A sample?

  141 college students
• exp 3B method?

  questionnaire used again but asked what they would do in one of scenarios from Exp 1
• exp 3B sample?

  189 students
• exp 1 results?

  * regardless of task asked to do, guard was always listened to the most, followed by milkman, followed by pedestrian

  * demonstrates social power of certain uniforms
• exp 2 results?

  * higher rates of obedience with guard's uniform than civilian's uniform

  * surveillance has no significant effect on obedience
• exp 3A and 3B results?

  * guard's uniform wasn't seen as more legitimate than others in both exp

  * there was mismatch in how people thought they'd behave and how they actually behave when put in that situation
• criticisms?

  * exp 1 and 2 lacked control of extraneous variables bc carried out in natural environment

  * culturally biased as only done in USA

  * ethical issues bc ppts didn't give consent in exp 1 and exp 2

  * use of opportunity sample could give biased and unrepresentative sample

  * use of scenarios in questionnaires depends on people's honesty