AO3 - situational variables

• A strength is research support by Bickman (1974)

  • 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 e.g. pick up litter
  • 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 a uniform adds to the legitimacy of the authority figure and is a situational variable which increases obedience levels.
• What is a strength of Milgram's research?

  Findings have been replicated in other cultures
• What did Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) study demonstrate about obedience?

  90% of participants obeyed orders to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job
• How were Milgram's findings about proximity also replicated by Meeus and Raajmakers (1986)?

  Obedience decreased dramatically when the order-giver was not present
• What do Milgram's findings suggest about the applicability of his research?

  Findings are valid across cultures and genders
• Who identified a counterpoint to Milgram's study being cross-cultural?

  • Smith and Bond (1998)
• What did Smith and Bond (1998) identify?

  • Only 2 replications of Milgram's study between 1968 and 1985 took place in non-western countries, India and Jordan
  • Other countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) are not that culturally different from the US
  • They have similar notions about authority
• Another limitation is low internal validity due to the Px knowing the procedure was fake
• Low Internal Validity

  Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study. They point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables.
• What is an example of manipulation of variables contributing to low internal validity?

  • The variation where the experimenter is replaced by a "member of the public"
  • Milgram recognised that this situation was so unrealistic that some Px may well have worked out the truth
  • Therefore it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just responded to demand characteristics
• Another limitation is Milgram's research supports a situational perspective in obedience.
• Mandel (1998) argues that a situational perspective provides an excuse for destructive obedience, as people can excuse 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.
• 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.