situational variables of obedience

situational variables

features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour

what was Milgram exploring in the variations of his obedience experiment?

he explored the role of 3 situational variables in obedience

• proximity: physical closeness of authority figure to the person they are giving an order to

• location: where an order is issued, the status or prestige associated with the location influences obedience

• uniform: authority figures often have specific outfits symbolic of their authority, shows they're entitled to our obedience

Milgram's obedience experiment- proximity variation

• baseline study the 'teacher' could hear the 'learner' but not see him, obedience at 65%

• proximity variation teacher and learner were in same room, obedience dropped to 40%

• touch proximity variation teacher had to force the learner's hand onto an electroshock plate, obedience dropped to 30%

• remote instruction variation the experimenter gave instructions by phone, obedience dropped to 20.5%

why did proximity affect obedience?

• when proximity is decreased, people can psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

• when the teacher and learner are physically separated, the teacher is less aware of the harm they were causing, leads to increased obedience

Milgram's obedience experiment- location variation

• Milgram's baseline study took place in the prestigious Yale university lab

• variation was carried out in a run down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%

why did location affect obedience?

• prestige of the university setting gave the study legitimacy of authority which participants assigned to the experimenter as 'he must be right because of the fancy lab'

• obedience still quite high in the office block as participants still felt the study was scientific, so demanded obedience

Milgram's obedience experiment- uniform variation

• baseline study dressed the experimenter in a grey lab coat to show authority

• variation had experimenter leave the room and replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public' (confederate) in everyday clothes

• obedience fell to 20%, lowest of all variations

why did uniform affect obedience?

• uniform encourages us to obey as they are symbols of authority, someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience as their uniform shows legitimacy of authority

• this is assigned by society as we are taught from a young age that uniform equals authority (eg police), shown in Zimbardo's study

strength of Milgram's situational variables- research support for the influence of situational variables

• Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in NYC, 3 confederates dressed in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkman's outfit, security guard's uniform, they individually stood in the street and asked people to perform tasks eg picking up rubbish or giving them money for a parking meter

• people were 2x more likely to obey the 'security guard' than the man in the suit

• shows that situational variables have a powerful effect on obedience

strength of Milgram's situational variables- cross cultural replications

• Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) tested obedience in Dutch participants, they were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job

• 90% of participants obeyed, when proximity of the person giving the orders decreases eg person giving orders isn’t present, proximity decreased

• shows Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to American males but are valid across cultures

weakness of Milgram's situational variables- cultural bias

• Smith & Bond (1998) found 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 in India and Jordan, very culturally different from the US

• every other repeat (Spain, Scotland, England) were all culturally similar, believe similar things about the role of authority

• may not be appropriate to assume Milgram's findings about situational variables can apply to all cultures

weakness of Milgram's situational variables- low internal validity

• Orne & Holland (1968) suggested its even more likely participants guessed the aim during the variations due to the extra experimental manipulation

• when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived its likely the participants spotted the aim

• unclear if findings are due to obedience or demand characteristics, the participants saw the deception and play acted

weakness of Milgram's situational variables- danger of the situational perspective

• Milgram's findings support a situational explanation of obedience

• Mandel (1998) suggests this offers an excuse (alibi) for evil behaviour eg genocide, seen as offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust as it suggests the Nazis were simply obeying orders, Milgram also ignored the role of dispositional factors like personality

• permits others to exude destructive behaviour in terms of ‘I was just obeying orders’