Milgram situational variables - what are they?
Proximity, location, uniform.
What happens if proximity increases?
Obedience decreases. The authority figure is disobeyed.
Evidence for proximity
Compared to original study in which learner and teacher were in adjoining rooms, they were in the same room. Obedience dropped to 40% from 65% and to 30% in a variation where learner hand was forced onto an electric shock plate.
How does uniform affect obedience?
If a non-professional uniform is worn, it is not seen as having authority and so obedience decreases
Evidence for uniform
Baseline study, experimenter wore grey lab coat (uniform widely recognised as symbol of authority so encourages obedience). But in variation the experimenter was called away and role was taken over by member of the public in ‘everyday clothes’ and obedience dropped to 20%
How did location affect milgrams study?
The baseline study was held in a prestigious university setting but in a variation it was conducted in a run down building. The experimenter had less authority and obedience fell to 47%. If the location is less authoritative, people feel more able to disobey the authority figure.
What is the autonomous state?
Free to behave according to an individuals own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Opposite of being in an agentic state.
What is an agentic state?
A mental state where we feels no personal responsibility for our own behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. This reduces guilt and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
What is the agentic shift?
When a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority and shifts from autonomy to agency.
Legitimacy of authority.
How credible a figure of authority is.
Suggests we are more likely to obey people we perceive to have authority over us. Justified by their position within a social hierarchy and our own.
3 strengths of the Agentic state as an explanation for obedience.
+ Blass & Schmidt - students were shown a film of milgrams study and blamed experimenter for the harm rather than participant. (Teacher)
+ can be used to explain real life war crimes, My Lai massacre
+ research support - Milgram’s research where the participants resisted giving the shocks until they asked who’s responsible for the harm of the learner and he said it was him so they continued with no further objections. In conclusion, once they realised they were not reliable for their behaviour, they acted easier.
What happened in the My Lai Massacre?
Lt William Calley ordered his men to murder the unarmed Vietnamese villagers. Men carried out the command. At the military trial, Calley did not accept his guilt using the defence that he had been following the orders of his superior.
Limitation of legitimacy of authority in explaining obedience
To do with credibility
- reduced credibility as legitimacy of authority cannot explain when obedience occurs in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. For example in Milgram’s study when some participants still disobeyed despite being aware of the experimenters authority. Suggests that some people may just be more obedient or less obedient than others, or innate tendencies have a greater influence.
Aims of Milgram’s study
How far people would obey to an instruction from an authority figure even if it involves harming another person.
Procedures in Milgram’s study
40 male participants American undergraduate
Volunteer sample - believed they were voluntarily participating in a study on memory and learning
Participants were paired with a confederate in a rigged draw and both slips said teacher so real participant was always teacher
Teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to confederate for any incorrect answers to a memory task. Learners did not receive electric shocks but teacher was made to believe they had.
Experimenter was played by an actor in the room with teacher who instructed them to administer the electric shocks.
Findings of Milgram’s study
• 65% participants continued to the highest level of 450 V
• all participants went up to at least 300 V
•12.5% stopped at 300V
Participants often showed signs of extreme tension and discomfort including sweating, nervous laughter, trembling and stuttering.
Conclusion from Milgram’s study
(4)
•Ordinary individuals are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure even to the extent of potentially causing harm to an innocent human.
•When people are given orders to act destructively they will experience high levels of stress and anxiety
• People are willing to harm someone if the responsibility is taken away from them and passed onto someone else.
Research point to support uniform situational variable
Bickman experiment supports the idea of uniform conveying authority and producing obedience. Out of three people in uniform (milkman, jacket and tie and security guard) people were more likely to obey the security guard
Evaluation of Research weakness on Milgram
Lack of internal validity. According to Milgram, 75% believed the shocks to be genuine. Other research shows that some participants behaved as they did as they didn’t really believe in the set up. This suggests some participants have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study.
Credibility strength of situational variables
Replicated in other cultures. Obedience rate over 90% in Spanish students. Suggests Milgram’s conclusions are not limited to American males but valid to other cultures too.
Counterpoint to credibility strength of cross cultural replication of Milgram’s situational variables findings
Smith and Bond identified two two replications that took place in non-western countries and other countries involved are not that culturally different from the US. Therefore it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings including those about situational variables can apply to people in all cultures.
Alternative explanation point of situational variables
Presence of social psychological factors reduces the strength of situational variables when explaining obedience
What are binding factors?
Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
What is the dispositional explanation of obedience?
Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individuals personality. This is the authoritarian personality.
-
Origins And Approaches48
-
Research Methods71
-
Biopsychology (Yr 12)29
-
Conformity40
-
Obedience39
-
Attachment95
-
Social Influence & Social Change8
-
Psychopathology89
-
Strange Situation - Attachment19
-
Memory109
-
Year 13 Approaches14
-
Biopsychology (Yr 13)62
-
Nature Nurture Debate19
-
Schizophrenia63
-
Gender And Culture9
