Variables affecting obedience

• How did Milgram investigate situational variables affecting obedience? (1)

  • Proximity: in this variation the Teacher and Learner were in the same room - obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
  • Touch proximity variation: Teacher forced Learner's hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when incorrect, dropping obedience to 30%
  • Remote instruction variation: Experimenter left the room and gave Teacher instructions by telephone, reducing obedience to 20.5%
  • Suggests decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions - when Teacher and Learner were physically separated obedience was high as the Teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person
• How did Milgram investigate situational variables affecting obedience? (2)

  • Location: Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block as opposed to the prestigious Yale university and found that obedience fell to 47.5%
  • Prestigious environment gave the study legitimacy and authority which is why ppts. were more obedient as it increased the trust they place in the integrity of the experiment
• How did Milgram investigate situational variables affecting obedience? (3)

  • Uniform: Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat in the baseline - in one variation they were called away and the role of Experimenter was taken over by an ordinary member of the public (a confederate) in normal clothes
  • Obedience dropped to 20%, suggesting that uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority
  • We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate - someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• What is one strength of research into situation variables affecting obedience?

  • Research support: Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in New York City where 3 confederates dressed in a jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit, and a security guard uniform stood in a street and asked passers-by to pick up litter and other tasks
  • People were 2x as likely to obey the security guard rather than the milkman's outfit
  • Supports the view that situational variables like uniforms have a powerful effect on obedience
• What is another strength of research into situational variables affecting obedience?

  • Cross-cultural replications: Meeus and Raaijmakes (1986) had Dutch participants say stressful things to a desperate confederate during a job interview - 90% of participants obeyed
  • When person giving orders was absent, obedience decreased
  • Suggests Milgram's findings are not just limited to Americans but are valid across other cultures - also supports location as a situational variable affecting obedience
• What is one limitation of research into situational variables affecting obedience?

  • Low internal validity: Orne and Holland (1968) pointed out that participants may have been aware the procedure was fake bcause of the extra manipulation of variables in his variations
  • Even Milgram recognised the variation of the Experimenter being replaced by a member of the public was so contrived some ppts. may as well have worked out the truth
  • Unclear whether findings are genuinely due to obedience or because ppts. responded to demand characteristics
• What is another limitation of research into situational variables affecting obedience?

  • Socially sensitive: Milgram's findings support the idea that obedience is encouraged by aspects of a person's situation
  • Mandel (1998) argues this offers an excuse for evil behaviour, believing it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest the Nazis were simply just obeying orders
  • Explanation ignores the role of dispositional factors, implying Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control