situational variables in obedience

situational variables

features of the immediate physical and social environments that may influence a person’s behaviour

location

- Milgram conducted his baseline study as Yale University
- in the location variable Milgram moved his experiment to a rundown office block building in Bridgeport, Connecticut
- obedience dropped from 65% in the baseline study to 47.5%
- prestigious uni gives the study legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the pps; the experimenter shares this legitimacy
- thus, pps though obedience was expected
- but, obedience levels were still high in the office block and that’s thought to be cuz pps were aware of the scientific nature of the procedure and cuz the researcher, who’s also associated with the institution and as an authority figure, was also present

proximity

- this variation was about distance between the learner, teacher and authority figure, and how a change in that distance could affect obedience
- in Milgram’s baseline study the teacher and learner were in separate rooms; so the teacher could hear the learner but couldn’t see him
- in the proximity variable the teacher and learner were in the same room → obedience dropped to 40%
- touch proximity variation: the learner has to place their own hand onto an electric shock plate if they got the answer wrong and if they refused the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the plate → obedience dropped to 30%
- remote instruction variation: the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher via telephone → obedience dropped to 20.5%
- decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. e.g. when the teacher and the learner were in different rooms, as was the case in the baseline study, the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing and so they were more obedient.

uniform

in most of Milgram’s variations the experimenter wore a lab coat, indicating his status as a uni professor. Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another ‘pp’ in ordinary clothes, who was in fact another confederate.

in this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time the learner made a mistake. the % of pps who administered the full 450 volts when being instructed by an ordinary man, dropped from 65% to 20%, demonstrating the dramatic power of uniform.

the reason is a uniform can add to the legitimacy of an authority figure.

AO3 - strength of Milgram’s uniform variation

Bickman (1974) investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used 3 male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard, and one dressed in ordinary clothes. The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said 'no standing’.

On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%. suggests that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power.

AO3 - strength of Milgram’s research

his findings have been replicated in other cultures. e.g. in a Dutch study, Meeus and Raaijmakers ordered pps to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job → 90% of the pps obeyed.

Milgram’s findings concerning proximity were also replicated. when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.

suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience aren’t just limited to Americans, but are valid across cultures.

COUNTER: replications of Milgram’s research aren’t very cross-cultural.

Smith and Bond identified two replications between 1968-1985 that took place in non-western countries, India and Jordan - both countries culturally quite different from US.

other countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) are culturally quite similar to the US, e.g. they have similar notions about the role of authority.

thus, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings (including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures.

AO3 - limitation of Milgram’s study of obedience

Orne and Holland → pps in Milgram’s baseline study may have been aware the procedure was fake → low internal validity. it’s even more likely in Milgram’s variations cuz of the extra manipulated variables.

e.g. in the uniform variation where the experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’. even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some pps may have worked out the truth.

thus, in all of Milgram’s study it’s unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or cuz the pps saw through the deception and just responded to demand characteristics.