Sit. factors - obedience

• What did Milgram investigate in his variations of the original procedure?

  Situational variables affecting obedience
• What are the three situational variables Milgram investigated?

  • Proximity
  • Location
  • Uniform
• How were the teacher and learner positioned in Milgram's original procedure?

  They were seated in adjoining rooms
• What was the obedience rate when the teacher and learner were in the same room?

  40%
• What happened in the touch proximity variation?

  The teacher forced the learner's hand onto a shock plate
• What was the obedience rate in the touch proximity variation?

  30%
• What was the obedience rate in the remote instruction variation?

  20.5%
• What conclusion did Milgram draw about proximity as a situational variable?

  Proximity is important for obedience rates
• How does decreased proximity to the victim affect obedience?

  It increases the obedience rate
• How does decreased proximity to the authority figure affect obedience?

  It decreases the obedience rate
• Where was Milgram's original procedure conducted?

  Yale University
• What was the obedience rate in the location variation conducted in Bridgeport?

  47.5%
• What conclusion did Milgram draw about location as a situational variable?

  Location affects the perceived legitimacy of authority
• What did the experimenter wear in Milgram's original procedure?

  A white lab coat
• What happened in the uniform variation of Milgram's study?

  An ordinary person took over the experimenter's role
• What was the obedience rate in the uniform variation?

  20%
• What conclusion did Milgram draw about uniform as a situational variable?

  Uniform affects the perceived legitimacy of authority
• What is a strength of research into situational variables + obedience

  Strength = evidence to support suggestion that proximity can affect obedience. E.g Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) used more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch pts. 3 people involved - experimenter, a job applicant (actually an actor) + pts. Pts told job required ability handle stress. Pts ordered to make a series of 15 negative comments abt interviewee’s performance + personality during test. Found 90% pts obeyed.. In 1 variation, experimenter ordered pts - negative comments + left room. Only 36% pts obeyed. support Milgram’s conclusion that decreased proximity between the individual and the authority figure decreases the obedience rate because the individual returns to a more autonomous state.
• What is a strength of research into situational variables + obedience

  Strength = research to support suggestion that uniform can affect obedience. E.g Bickman asked 3 confederates to give orders to passers by on the street. One confederate dressed as security guard, one - milkman and one - civilian clothes. Bickman found regardless of order given, passers by were most likely to obey the confederate dressed as the security guard, and least likely to obey the confederate dressed in civilian clothes. Suggests - in real life settings, ppl more likely to obey individual who is wearing a uniform that suggests legitimacy + authority.
• What is a weakness of research into situational variables + obedience

  Weakness = evidence some situational variables more important than others. E.gHofling et al. (1966) - psychiatric hospital in America. Pts = 22 staff nurses, who received phone call from unknown doctor who asked nurses to give 20mg of a drug called Astrofen to a particular patient. The Astrofen bottle -  label  saying maximum daily dosage = 10mg.Found 21/22 nurses obeyed. Suggests that location might be more important than proximity in determining obedience.
• What is a weakness of research into situational variables + obedience

  Weakness = been suggested Milgram’s ps worked out shocks = fake. Orne & Holland (1968) - even more likely in his variation procedures due to the extra manipulation of variables. A good example is in the uniform variation, where the experimenter is replaced by ‘a member of the public’. Even Milgram recognised that this situation is so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth. As a result, in all of Milgram’s studies we are unclear whether his findings are due to the operation of obedience or because the participants were responding to demand characteristics.