situational variables affecting obedience

• P: Orne and Holland claimed that participants in psychological studies have learned to distrust experimenters because they know that the true purpose of the study may be disguised

  E: Perry discovered that many Milgram's participants had been skeptical at the time about whether the shocks were real. One of Milgram's research assistants had divided the participants into 'doubters' (believe shocks were fake) and 'believers' (believe shocks were real). He found it was this latter group who were more likely to disobey the experimenter and give only low intensity shocks.
• Link for lack of realism

  L: this finding challenges the validity of Milgram's study and suggests that when faced with the reality of destructive obedience, people are more likely to disobey an authority figure
• P: Mandel challenges the relevance of obedience research as an explanation of real life atrocities, claiming that Milgram's conclusions about the situational determinants of obedience are not borne out by real-life events.

  E: Men of reserve police Battalion received orders to carry out a mass killing of jews. commanding officer (trapp) made an offer to his men that anyone who didnt feel up to this duty could be assigned other tasks. despite presence of factors shown by milgram to increase defiance only a small minority took up trapp's offer. majority carried out their orders without protest.
• Link for reserve police battalion

  L: Mandel concludes that using obedience as an explanation for these activities for these atrocities serves only as an alibi, masking the real reasons behind such behaviours
• • Strength: Field experiment in New York — a confederate dressed as a guard, milkman, or in civilian clothes asked people to perform tasks (e.g., pick up litter).
  • Finding: People were twice as likely to obey the guard compared to the civilian.
  • Conclusion: Supports the role of uniform as a situational variable influencing obedience, increasing external validity.