5. obedience and situational variables

situational variables

features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour

opposite is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality

situational variables studied by milgram

1. proximity - physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to

2. location - place where the order is issued

3. uniform - what is worn

proximity

• teacher and learner were in the same room

• obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

• touch proximity variation - teacher had to force participants hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ when he refused to answer a question - obedience dropped to 30%

• remote instruction variation - instructions given to participants by telephone, participants frequently faked giving shocks - obedience dropped to 20.5%

explanation

• decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

• ie in baseline study the participant was less aware of the harm being inflicted so were more obedient

location

• conducted a variation in a run down office block rather then prestigious yale university

• obedience fell to 47.5%

explanation

• prestigious uni environment gave study legitimacy and authority

• participants were more obedient in this location as they percieved the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected

• however obedience was still quite high in the office block as the participants percieved the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure

uniform

• in baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform)

• in one variation the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure

• role of experimenter was taken over by ‘an ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in every day clothes

• obedience dropped to 20% - lowest

explanation

• uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority

• we accept someone in a uniforn is entitled to expect obedience as their authority is legitimate (ie granted by society)

• someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience

evaluation

• research support

• cross cultural replications & COUNTERPOINT

• low internal validity

• oversimplification of complex behaviours

research support

• key point: situational variables, such as uniforms, have a significant effect on obedience

• supporting evidence: bickman (1974) found that participants were twice as likely to obey orders (e.g., picking up litter or giving change for a parking meter) from a person dressed as a security guard than someone dressed in casual clothes

• explanation: this demonstrates the impact of situational cues, like uniforms, in increasing obedience to authority

• application: highlights the role of situational factors in influencing obedience, supporting milgram’s findings

cross cultural replications

• key point: milgram’s findings on obedience have been replicated across different cultures

• supporting evidence: meeus and raaijmakers (1986) conducted a more realistic study in the netherlands, where participants obeyed 90% of the time when instructed to deliver insults to a job applicant. similar obedience levels were found in other countries

• explanation: these findings show that obedience to authority is not limited to specific cultures or demographics

• application: supports the generalizability of milgram’s conclusions across cultures and genders

COUNTERPOINT

• key point: milgram’s findings may not be fully applicable to all cultures

• supporting evidence: smith and bond (1998) found that replications between 1968 and 1985 were mostly conducted in western cultures, such as the usa and australia, which share similar notions of authority

• explanation: this limits the universality of milgram’s conclusions, as the role of authority may differ in non-western cultures

• application: raises concerns about the cross-cultural validity of milgram’s findings

low internal validity

• key point: participants may have realized the procedure was not genuine

• supporting evidence: orne and holland (1968) argued that participants’ behavior may reflect demand characteristics, as some could have recognized the experiment’s setup as fake

• explanation: this challenges the validity of milgram’s results, as it is unclear whether obedience was genuine or influenced by participants playing along

• application: limits the reliability of conclusions drawn about obedience

oversimplification of complex behaviours

• key point: situational explanations for obedience may oversimplify complex behaviors

• supporting evidence: mandel (1998) criticized milgram’s situational perspective, arguing it provides an “alibi” for evil acts, such as those committed during the holocaust, by ignoring dispositional factors like personality

• explanation: this perspective risks downplaying individual responsibility and overemphasizing situational influences

• application: highlights the ethical and moral implications of attributing obedience solely to situational factors