Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

• Obedience= a form of social influence that results in a change in a person's behaviour or attitudes in response to a direct order from an authority figure. It is assumed that without the order, the person would not have acted this way.
• Conformity:

  • Implicit pressure from social group
  • Motivated by the desire to be accepted or right
  • Individuals are of equal status
• Obedience:

  • Direct/ explicit order from authority
  • Motivated by fear of punishment for disobedience
  • The authority figure is perceived to be of a higher status
• Obedience Study- Milgram 1963: 1

  • Aim: to see if people would obey an order with negative consequences.
  • 40 male volunteers recruited aged 20-50 & were told the study was on the effect of punishment & learning- were paid $4 for just turning up.
  • PPs told they would be assigned the role of 'teacher' or 'learner', but the process was rigged & the role of 'learner' was always played by a confederate- Mr Wallace.
  • PPs told that every time the learner got a word pair wrong, they had to administer increasingly strong shocks- started at 15 volts & went up in 15v increments to a max of 450v.
• Obedience Study- Milgram 1963: 2

  • All of the shocks were actually fake.
  • Mr Williams was the experimenter who wore a grey lab coat & was stern (the authority figure).
  • The confederate 'learner' was instructed to give mainly wrong answers & to grunt with pain then complain loudly, then to pound on the wall demanding to be let out, but at 315v they fall silent.
  • If the PPs expressed a desire to stop, they were given verbal prods by the 'experimenter', eg "it is absolutely essential that you continue".
• Obedience Study- Milgram 1963 Findings:

  • 100% of PPs went to 300 volts.
  • 65% went to 450 volts.
  • PPs were distressed & argued etc, 3 PPs even had seizures.
  • People will obey an authority figure, even if it causes distress to themselves.
• • Situational= environmental conditions
  • Depositional= personality factors
• Situational variables affecting obedience:

  • the following 3 situational variables that altered obedience rates, discovered through variations of his initial study
  • Proximity
  • Location
  • Uniforms
• Proximity:

  • of the 'experimenter'
  • when the 'experimenter' was moved from directly behind the PP & gave instructions via the telephone, obedience rate dropped to 21% compared to rate of 65% in original obedience study. PPs even lied about the level of shock.
  • proximity alters your knowledge of how powerful the authority figure seems.
• Location:

  • of the study
  • original study conducted in psychology lab at Yale University- obedience= 65%
  • when the experiment was carried out in a rundown office block, obedience= 47.5%
  • the location gives important information about the credibility & integrity of the authority figure- we are more likely to follow orders from legitimate authority figures.
• Uniform:

  • the power of a uniform
  • original study: the 'experimenter' wore a grey lab coat- obedience= 65%
  • when the experimenter role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public', in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat, obedience= 20%
  • uniforms convey information about power & authority, & we are taught from a young age to obey such figures.
• Evaluation for Milgram's study on Obedience- Weakness:

  • Are ethical issues- psychologists criticise study due to the lack of concern for the research PPs.
  • For example, Milgram deceived his PPs by not telling them the truthful reason for the study.
  • Lack of informed consent- this made it impossible for PPs to make an informed decision before giving their consent to PP in study.
  • However, Milgram stated that without deception, social influence studies would be worthless, as full knowledge would have altered PP's behaviours entirely.
• Evaluation for Milgram's study on Obedience- Weakness:

  • Lack of right for PPs to withdraw from study- is a part of informed consent to allow PPs the right to withdraw if at any point they change their mind about participating.
  • Although Milgram claimed that PPs were free to leave at any time, the prods from the experimenter made it more difficult for some PPs who felt they had no choice about continuing.
  • Milgram argued that PPs did have the right to leave, because some PPs did actually leave.
• Evaluation for Milgram's study on Obedience- Weakness:

  • PPs had a lack of protection from psychological harm- Milgram did not step in when PPs visibly showed distress & so didn't protect from psychological harm.
  • Led to 3 people having seizures.
  • Milgram argues that he underwent considerable debriefing with PPs to return them to their original state & that when interviewed, 84% of them said they were glad to have participated.
  • Argued that psychology should not rely on unethical research & so should disregard Milgram's findings, regardless of how insightful they are.
• Evaluation for Milgram's Study on Obedience- Weakness:

  • The study lacked ecological validity- the task itself was unrealistic & bears little resemblance to real life conditions.
  • This compromises the degree to which the results can be applied outside of Milgram's lab.
  • Cannot apply to real life instances of obedience.