SI: Situational variables affecting obediance

Question 1

What key study does this include and what year was it set?

Answer 1

Milgram (1963)

Question 2

What was the procedure of the study?

Answer 2

• Milgrams study involved 40 participants at a time over a series of conditions- each varying some aspect of the situation to calculate its effect on obediance.
• There were two experimental confederates, and an experimenter ( 47 year old man) who was introduced as another volunteer participant.
• Two participants drew lots to see who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner”-
• This however was rigged!- The participant was always the “teacher”.
• The “teacher” was required to test the ability of the “learner” to remember word pairs.
• Every time the “learner” got one wrong, the teacher had to administer increasing levels of strong electric shocks- starting at 15V to a maximum of 450V.

Question 3

PROCEDURE

What happened in the voice feedback study?

Answer 3

• Confederate in other room gave mainly wrong answers and recieved “fake” shocks in silence until they reached the 300 V level (strong shock).
• At this point- he pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question.
• He repeated this at 315 v and from then on said/ did nothing.
• If teacher asked to stop at any point- the experimenter had a series of “prods” to repeat such as saying “it is absolutely essential that you must continue” or “You have no other choice, you must go on”.

Question 4

Procedure

How many participants did the study involve at a time and what was varied?

Answer 4

40 participants at a time over a series of conditions, each varying some aspect of the situation to calculate its effect on obedience!

Question 5

Procedure

Who were the two experimental confederates?

Answer 5

An experimenter and a 47 year old man who was introduced as another volunteer participant.

Question 6

How did the participants see who would act as the “teacher” and who would act as the “learner” ?

Answer 6

• They drew lots to see who would act as the “teacher” and who would act as the “learner”.
• This was rigged however so that the participant was always the teacher and the “fake” participant the learner.

Question 7

Procedure

What was the teacher required to do?

Answer 7

• Test the ability of the learner on his ability to remember word pairs.
• Every time he got one wrong the teacher had to administer increasingly strong electric shocks, starting at 15v then continuing up to a maximum of 450v in 15 v increments.

Question 8

Procedure

What would happen if the “teacher” asked to stop at any point?

Answer 8

The experimenter had a series of “prods” to repeat such as saying:

“It is absolutely essential that you must continue” or “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

Question 9

Findings

Before the study- what did Milgram ask psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict?

What did these groups predict?

Answer 9

• Predict how long participants would go before refusing to continue.
• Consistently these groups predicted that very few would go beyond 150v and only 1 in 1000 would administer the full 450 volts.

Question 10

Findings

In the voice feedback study- how many of the 40 participants continued to the maximum shock level of 450v?

Answer 10

(65%)

Question 11

How was the shock generator labelled?

Answer 11

“Danger: severe shock” at 420V

“XXX” at 450V

Question 12

Findings

How many participants went to 300V and how many stopped there?

Answer 12

All the participants went to 300V - with only 5 (12.5%) stopping there, the point at which the learner first objected!

Question 13

What situational factors affect obediance?

Answer 13

• Proximity
• Location
• The power of uniform

Question 14

SITUATIONAL FACTORS IN OBEDIANCE

• In the proximity study- where were the teacher and learner seated?
• What did obediance levels fall to and why was this?
• What was the teacher required to do in an even more extreme variation?

Answer 14

• Both the teacher and the learner were seated in the same room.
• Obediance levels fell to 40% as the teacher was now able to experience the learners anguish more directly.
• The teacher was required to force the learners hand onto a shock plate.

Question 15

SITUATIONAL FACTORS IN OBEDIANCE

What happened in the touch proximity condition?

What did Milgram discover?

Answer 15

• The obedience levels dropped even further to 30%.
• He discovered that the proximity of the authority figure also had an effect on the obediance rates.

Question 16

SITUATIONAL FACTORS IN OBEDIANCE

What occured in the experimenter absent study?

What did participants do as a consequence of this?

Answer 16

• In the experimenter absent study, after giving his instructions, the experimenter left the room and gave subsequent orders over the telephone.
• The vast majority of participants now defied the experimenter, with only 21% continuing to the maximum shock level.
• Some even went as far as repeatedly giving the weakest shock level despite telling the experimenter they were following the correct procedure!

Question 17

SITUATIONAL FACTORS IN OBEDIANCE

In the experimenter absent study- what percentage of participants continued to the maximum shock level?

Answer 17

21%

Question 18

SITUATIONAL FACTORS IN OBEDIANCE

Where were the studies conducted?

Answer 18

Conducted in the psychology department at Yale university.

Question 19

SITUATIONAL FACTORS IN OBEDIANCE- location

What did several participants remark about the location?

Answer 19

The location of the study gave them confidence in the integrity of the people involved, and many indicated that they would not have shocked the learner if this study had been carried out elswhere!! ;)

Question 20

Situational factors in obediance- location

Where did Milgram move his study to due to participants remarking that the location gave them confidence in the integrity of the people involved?

What did obediance levels change to and what percentage of participants delivered the maximum 450v?

Answer 20

• Moved his study to a run-down office in Bridgeport Connecticut, with no obvious affiliations with Yale.
• Obediance rates did drop slightly but not significantly, with 48% of participants delivering the maximum 450v.

Question 21

Situational factors in obediance- the power of uniform

What has research shown about uniforms towards obediance and why is this?

Answer 21

• Uniforms can have a powerful impact on obediance.
• They are easily recognisable and convey power and authority, which can become symbolised in the uniform itself.

Question 22

Situational factors in obediance- uniform

• What did Bushman carry out in 1988??
• What were the percentages of whether people obeyed in each outfit?
• What did people claim afterwards?

Answer 22

• Carried out a study where a female researcher, dressed in either a “police-style” uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar, stopped people in the street and asked them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter.
• Uniform- 72% obeyed
• Business executive- 48%
• Beggar- 52%

People claimed afterwards that they had obeyed the woman in uniform because she appeared to have authority.

Question 23

What did Milgram’s study demonstrate?

Answer 23

• Ordinary people are astonishingly obedient- even when asked to do something that goes against their own morality.
• It appeared to suggest that it is not evil people who commit atrocities such as those witnessed during the Holocaust, but ordinary people who are just obeying orders.

Question 24

EVALUATION/ DISCUSSION

Internal validity/ lack of realism- What did Orne and Holland (1968 claim)?

Answer 24

Claimed that participants in psychological studies have learned to distrust the experimenters because they know that the true nature of the purpose will be disguised!

Question 25

Internal validity: a lack of realism What did Perry 2012 discover about many of Milgrams participants? What did one of his assistants divide the participants into and what did he find?

Answer 25

They had been scpetical at the time about whether the shocks were real or not. * Group called **"Doubters"** (those who believed the shocks were fake) * Group called **"Believers"** (those who believed they were delivering real shocks to the learner.) He found that this latter group were more likely to disobey the experimenter and give only low intensity shocks.

Question 26

What does Perry (2012) discovery challenge?

Answer 26

**Challenges** the **validity** of Milgrams study and suggests that **when faced with the reality of destructive obediance**, **people** are **more likely to disobey an authority figure!**

Question 27

What are the **discussion points** for situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 27

* location and how it can lead to demand characteristics. * historical validity. * effect of proximity and its applications to real life

Question 28

# statistical analysis and recent **​Situational variables affecting obedience:​** Discuss the historical validity.

Answer 28

**P -** Some may dismiss Milgram's findings because the experiment was carried out over 50 years ago. **E -** Research (1999) carried out statistical analysis of obedience studies carried out between 60s and 80s. Found no correlation between year of study and obedience levels. **E -** More recently, research (2009) found levels of obedience almost identical to Milgram's original study. **L -** Shows historical validity of Milgram's research.

Question 29

# Reserve police battalion. **​Situational variables affecting obedience:** Discuss the effect of proximity and its applications to real life.

Answer 29

**P -** Research (1998) challenged the relevance of Milgram's research and his conclusions about the situational determinants of obedience to real life situations. **E -** Reserve Police Battalion 101 received orders to carry out mass killings of Jews in WW2. The commanding officer made them an offer - anyone who didn't want to do this could be assigned other tasks. **E -** According to Milgram, the men should show increased defiance, as they were in *close proximity* to their victims and there was a presence of *disobedient peers.* BUT this was not the case - the vast majority obeyed and carried out the killings. **L -** This shows the lack of ecological validity of Milgram's work, and led other researchers to conclude that using obedience as an explanation for crimes serves only as an alibi.

Question 30

**Situational variables affecting obedience:** Discuss location and how it can lead to demand characteristics.

Answer 30

**P -** Research (1973) claimed Milgram's subjects were more likely to obey in the study than in real life, because they knew they were part of a scientific experiment. **E -** In a lab study, experimenter acts as a representative of science and therefore people are more likely to obey them, because science is a prestigious institution. This led researchers to suggest that high degree of obedience was less surprising than the 35% disobedience. **E -** Contrastingly, real-life obedience to authority is more difficult and time consuming to achieve. Eg. the Rwanda genocide, 1994, required years of manipulation and systematic dehumanisation of the target group. **L -** Suggests presence of demand characteristics within Milgram's study, and implies that we should be careful about generalisations made from the findings.