4 Obedience: situational variables

Define ‘dispositional variables’

• Variables explained in terms of personality

Define ‘location’

• The place where an order is issued. Relevant factor that influences obedience is the status/prestige associated with location'

Define ‘proximity’

• Physical closeness/distance of an authority figure to the person they’re giving an order to

Define ‘situational variables’

• Features of immediate physical & social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour. Alternative is dispositional variables.

Define ‘uniform’

• Authority positions wear a specific outfit, indicating they’re entitled to expect obedience

Describe proximity

• Teacher & learner in same room - obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

• ‘Touch proximity’ - teacher forces learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate if learner refused → Obedience dropped further to 30%

• Remote instruction - experimenter left room & gave instructions by telephone → obedience reduced to 20.5% & participants pretended to give shocks

• Explanation - decreased proximity allowed naive participants to psychologically distance themselves from actions - less aware of harm they’re causing

Describe location

• Conducted in a run-down office block rather than prestigious Yale university setting of baseline study - obedience fell to 47.5%

• Explanation - prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy & authority. Participants perceived that experimenter shared legitimacy & obediency expected. Obedience still high in office block as participants perceived scientific nature of study

Describe uniform

• Experimenter was take over by an ‘ordinary member of public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. Obedience rate dropped to 20%

• Explanation - uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority, indicating authority is legitimate & obediency is expected.

Evaluation - research support

• Leonard Beckman had three confederates dress in different outfits: Jacket & tie, milkman outfit & security guard’s uniform

• Asked passers-by to perform simple tasks e.g picking up litter

• Twice as likely to obey confederate dressed as security guard

• Supports view that situational variable e.g uniform has a powerful effect on obedience

Evaluation - cross-culture replications & counterpoint

• Quinteen Raajimakers and Wim Meeus studied obedience in Dutch participants (Men & women) ordered to say stressful things to an interviewee (confederate) desperate for a job → 90% obeyed. When person giving orders not present, obedience decreased rapidly.

• Counterpoint: Peter smith & Michael Bond (1998) identified just two replications that took place in India & Jordan. Both countries significantly different to USA whereas other countries involved (Spain, Australia & Scotland) are culturally quite similar to US, therefore it’s not appropriate to conclude milligram’s findings apply to all cultures

Evaluation - demand characteristics

• Perry et al. (2020) reported participants classified as ‘not fully believed’ administered more shocks, than those classified as ‘fully believed’

• Suggests participants’ behaviour was result of ‘play-acting’, therefore they responded to demand characteristics

Evaluation - danger of situational perspective

• David Mandel (1998) argued that Milgram’s findings offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour. It’s offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milgram’s explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors e.g personality.