1.7: The external explanation Flashcards
(15 cards)
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks)
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
What does this do?
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However,
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
What does this do?
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
What does this show?
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, what did he find?
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform.
What does this suggest?
This suggests that uniform is a valid variable affecting obedience
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform.
This suggests that uniform is a valid variable affecting obedience.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience, as the proximity of the experimenter, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within the situation that influence obedience, but this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998), who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ (obedience alibi) for evil behaviour
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform.
This suggests that uniform is a valid variable affecting obedience.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience, as the proximity of the experimenter, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within the situation that influence obedience, but this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998), who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ (obedience alibi) for evil behaviour.
In his view,
In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform.
This suggests that uniform is a valid variable affecting obedience.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience, as the proximity of the experimenter, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within the situation that influence obedience, but this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998), who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ (obedience alibi) for evil behaviour.
In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that is that a strength of Milgram’s variations is a high degree of control of variables, as he systematically altered one variable at a time, such as proximity, to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform.
This suggests that uniform is a valid variable affecting obedience.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience, as the proximity of the experimenter, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within the situation that influence obedience, but this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998), who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ (obedience alibi) for evil behaviour.
In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that is that a strength of Milgram’s variations is a high degree of control of variables, as he systematically altered one variable at a time, such as proximity, to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience.
All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over again with more than 1,000 participants in total
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and discuss what this tells us about why people obey (12 marks).
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Milgram (1974) found that when the teacher and the learner were in the same room as each other, so that the teacher could see the learner’s distress, obedience dropped to 40% from 65%.
When the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an apparent shock plate, increasing the realisation of their actions, obedience dropped further to 30%.
This illustrates the effect proximity has on obedience levels and suggests that proximity is a valid variable affecting obedience.
However, there is contradictory research into proximity, as Mandel (1998) found that mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity of the victims without protest.
This invalidates Milgram’s research and suggests that proximity does not affect obedience.
Milgram (1974) performed a variation of his study in an office block in a run-down part of town and found that obedience dropped to 45% from 65%.
Milgram’s findings into location suggest that the change in location from Yale University reduced the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure giving the orders, leading to a significant drop in the obedience rate.
This shows that location is a valid variable affecting obedience.
Bickman (1974) found that when ordering people on a New York street to pick up rubbish, loan a coin to a stranger or move away from a bus stop, 19% would obey his research assistant when he was dressed in civilian clothes, 14% when dressed as a milkman, but 38% when he wore a security guard’s uniform.
In Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter also wore a grey lab coat.
In a variation of Bickman’s study, he found that people would even obey the guard when he walked away after giving the order, which suggests that they obeyed not because they felt forced, but because they believed that he had legitimate authority due to his uniform.
This suggests that uniform is a valid variable affecting obedience.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience, as the proximity of the experimenter, the location of the study and the presence of a uniform are all factors within the situation that influence obedience, but this perspective has been criticised by Mandel (1998), who argues that it offers an excuse or ‘alibi’ (obedience alibi) for evil behaviour.
In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that is that a strength of Milgram’s variations is a high degree of control of variables, as he systematically altered one variable at a time, such as proximity, to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience.
All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over again with more than 1,000 participants in total.
What does this mean?
This means that the variations have high internal validity and so a cause and effect relationship can be established, allowing conclusions to be drawn
