O- situational variables
Cards (6)
- Obedience – situational variables-Proximity-
- Lower proximity decreased the obedience due to the psychological distance between the participant and the learner.
- Higher proximity like L and T in the same room the obedience was 40% from 60%, T forcing Ls hand on the button made the toxicity 30%, instructions over the phone it went to 20.5%.
- Physical distance made T less aware of the damage they were causing so they were more obedient.
- Obedience – situational variables-Location-
- Milgrams experiment was performed in a Yale uni and was 65% obedient, then in a run-down office and became 47.5%.
- The location gave legitimacy, which was assumed to be shared with the experiment.
- Still high in the office due to participants believing in the ‘scientific’ nature of the experiment.
- Obedience – situational variables-Uniform-
- Grey lab coat wore in the original, which was perceived as authority, in a variation an ‘ordinary member of the public’ took over the experiment wearing casual clothes, making the obedience drop to 20%.
- People accept those in uniform having authority, and are therefore obedient to them, when it changed to someone casual, they are seen to not have the legitimacy therefore don’t require their obedience.
- Obedience - situational variablesS- Bickman (1974) had people ask strangers for small tasks in different outfits/uniforms, higher obedience in the uniform.W- Orne and Holland (1968) criticise due t the results being manipulated by the different variable like having a ‘member of the public’ conduct the experiment.
- Obedience - situational variablesCPS- Meeus and Raaijmaers (1986) replicated milgrams study with Dutch participants, fond 90% obeyed.CPW- Smith and Bond (1998) also replicated the experiment in India and Jordan and got very different results from the US.
- Obedience - situational variablesCPS- supports situational variablesCPW- Mandel (1998) argues it is an excuse for evil behaviour since it says that the nazis were just obeying orders.