obedience: situational variables

• explanations for obedience based on situational variables

  • proximity = closeness of teacher and learner
  • location = prestige of setting
  • uniform = communicates authority
• proximity variable

  • in baseline study = the teacher could hear the learner but not see him
  • proximity variation = teacher and learner were in the same room = obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
  • touch-proximity variation = teacher forced the learners hand onto a shock plate = obedience rate dropped to 30%
  • remote-instruction variation = experimenter left room and gave instructions by telephone = obedience rate was 20.5% and pps often pretended to give shocks
• proximity explanation

  • decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
  • eg = when the teacher and learner were physically separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm done, so obedient
• location variable

  • the study was conducted in a run-down building rather than at the prestigious Yale University (as in the baseline)
  • obedience dropped to 47.5%
• location explanation

  • obedience was higher in the because the setting was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected)
• uniform variable

  • in baseline study = experimenter wore a grey lab coat (a kind of uniform)
  • in variation = experimenter 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 fell to 20% (lowest of the variations)
• uniform explanation

  • a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society - someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• strength = support for influence of situational variables

  • Bickman = confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands (eg pick up litter) to people on the streets of NYC
  • people were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'jacket/tie' confederate
  • shows that a situational variable (such as uniform) does have a powerful effect on obedience
• strength = cross-cultural replication of Milgram's research

  • Meesus and Raaijmakers = worked with Dutch pps, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees
  • they found 90% obedience and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present)
  • shows that Milgram's findings are not limited to American males but are valid across cultures
• counterpoint to cross-cultural replication

  • Smith and Bond = most replications took place in societies (eg Spain/australia) culturally not that different from the US
  • => we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all (or most) cultures
• limitation = low internal validity in the studies

  • 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 where the experimenter was replaced by 'a member of the public' even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some pps may have worked it out
  • => it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because pps saw the deception and 'play acted' (ie were influenced by demand characteristics)
• extra evaluation = danger of the situational perspective

  • Milgram's conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience
  • Mandel = argues this offers an excuse (alibi) for genocide - situational explanations hugely oversimplify the causes of the holocaust and are offensive to survivors
  • this permits others to excuse destructive behaviour in terms of 'I was just obeying orders'