obedience:situational variables

• 3 types of situational variables:

  • proximity
  • uniform
  • location
• In the proximity variation of Milfram’s obedience study, teacher and learner were in the same room and obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. In touch proximity variation, the reacher forced the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. The obedience was 30%. In remote instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. Obedience rate dropped to 20.5% and participants gave fake shock
• Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. For example, when the teacher and learner were physically separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was more obedient
• The study was conducted in a run down building rather than at Yale University (as in the baseline. Obedience dropped to 47.5%
• obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority
• In the baseline study, the experiementer wore a lab coat (a uniform). In one variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient’ phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20% (the lowest of these variations)
• a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granoted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• One strength is research support for the influence of situational variables. Bickman’s confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket/ties, milkman, security guard) and issued demands to people on the streets of New York City. People were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket/tie confederate. This shows that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience
• One limitation is low internal validity in the studies. Orne and Holland suggested the variations were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation. In the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out. Therefore it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and ‘play acted’ (demand characteristics)