Social Influence - Situational Factors and Explanations for Obedience

Question 1

Situational variable

Answer 1

• A feature of the environment that unintentionally affects the results of a study or the behaviour of an individual

Question 2

Proximity

Answer 2

First variation:
- Teacher + Learner in same room
- Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
Second variation:
- Teacher forced learner’s hand onto a ‘electroshock plate’ when they refused to answer the question
- Obedience rate dropped further to 30%
Third variation:
- Experimenter left the room + gave instructions via phone
- Proximity reduced
- Obedience rate dropped to 21%
- Ppts pretended to give shocks or administer lower levels of shocks

Question 3

Location

Answer 3

• Setting at Yale University - extremely prestigious uni in US
  First variation:
• Changed setting to run-down abandoned building
• Obedience rate dropped to 48% - not significant

Question 4

Uniform

Answer 4

Original:
- Experimenter wearing a lab coat - official piece of clothing
First variation:
- Experimenter called away for a phone call + ‘replaced with ordinary member of the public’
- Wearing everyday casual clothes
- Obedience rate dropped to 20%

Question 5

Research support - Bickman

Answer 5

Procedure:
- Field experiment on 153 randomly occurring ppts in NY
- Experimenter dressed as security guard, milkman, ordinary clothes
- Asked members of public to follow one of three instructions:
1. “pick up this bag for me”
2. “this man is overparked at the meter, but doesn’t have any change – give him a dime”
3. “Don’t you know you have to stand on the other side of this pole? The sign says no standing.”

Findings:
- Security guard obeyed on 76% of occasions
- Milkman - 47%
- Pedestrian - 30%

-Individuals more likely to obey when instructed by someone wearing a uniform - infers legitimate power and authority