5. Explanations for obedience - Situational variables (Milgram)

Milgram’s study

A: investigate obedience

P: 40 male pps were told they were taking place in a study on memory and learning at the prestigious Yale university. pps were introduced to an experimenter in a white lab coat and a confederate named “Mr Wallace“. pp drew lots and was always chosen as the role of teacher, whereas Mr Wallace was always the learner. placed in a room with a shock generator, pp would apply shocks of increasing levels to the learner every time a question was answer incorrectly. voltages increased from 14-450V. at over 330V, learner would stop responding (recorded responses)

F: 65% continued to 450V, 12.5% stopped at 300V (intense shock), 0% stopped below 300V. qualitative data was collected from observations of the pps (extreme tension, sweating). all pps were debriefed

one limitation of Milgram’s study is low internal validity

Perry (2013) listened back to the tapes of the pps and found some pps knew the shocks weren’t real = lacked internal validity

Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a puppy, 100% of females and 54% of males delivered what they thought was a fatal shock

suggests the effects in Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved the same way with real shocks

one limitation is Milgram’s study lacks population validity

biased sample of 40 male volunteers = unable to generalise results to other populations

Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study where real shocks were given to a puppy, 100% of females and 54% of males delivered what they thought was a fatal shock

suggests that if Milgram has used female pps, the results would have been different (women shown to be more obedient)

one limitation of Milgram’s study is that it lacks ecological validity

Milgram tested obedience in a lab = different to real-life situations of obedience where people are asked to follow more subtle instructions (rather than administering electric shocks) = non-generalisable to real life situations of obedience, lacks mundane realism

Hofling et al (1966) studied nurses in a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors as being very high (21/22)

suggests findings from Milgram’s study can be generalised

describe Milgram’s proximity variation

refers to the physical closeness of the teacher to the learner

teacher and learner in different rooms = 65% went up to 450V

teacher and learner in the same room = 20% went up to 450V

physical closeness to the victim increases empathy and awareness = leads to a reduction in compliance to authority

when the experimenter left the room and gave orders over a telephone, more pps were able to resist = 20% went up to 450V

describe Milgram’s location variation

refers to the place where an order is issued

status/prestige associated with the location will influence obedience

study took place in a prestigious university setting (Yale) = 65% went up to 450V

study took place in a run-down office downtown = 47.5% went up to 450V

describe Milgram’s uniform variation

people in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority = indicates to others they are entitled to expect our obedience

experimenter wore a lab coat = 65% went up to 450V

role of experimenter carried out by ordinary member of the public = 20% went up to 450V

one strength is research support for the effect of uniform on obedience

Bickman (1974) conducted a field exp where 3 male researchers (dressed as either a security guard, a milkman, or as a civilian) gave requests to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in NY = people were more likely to obey the researcher dressed as a security guard (89%) than one dressed as a civilian (33%)

supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform converys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factor is produced obedience

one strength is research support for the effect of location on obedience

Hofling et al (1966) studied nurses in a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors (administering twice the maximum dosage) as being very high (21/22 nurses)

when interviewed after, the nurses said that from experience had they not obeyed the doctors became annoyed

suggests Milgram’s conclusions about obedience can be applied to real life situations

one strength of Milgram’s study and his variations is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures

Miranda et al (1981) found obedience rate of over 90.5 amongst Spanish students = cross-cultural support

suggests Milgram’s conclusions are not just limited to the American sample

however, Smith and Bond argue against this = states the replications are taking place in similar Western societies which aren’t that different culturally from USA

one limitation of Milgram’s studies on situational variables is that obedience was rarely 0% or 100% which suggests there are other factors affecting obedience

dispositional factors = personality may play a part = research has shown those with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey

culture = may be considered rude to question authority figures in some cultures (leading to higher levels of obedience), may be seen as admirable to challenge authority (leading to lower levels of obedience)