38695994
Description
Mind Map by Alicja Klak, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Alicja Klak
about 1 year ago
|
|
1.5 Obedience - Situational Variables
- After Stanley Milgram
conducted his first study on
obedience, he carried out
variations in order to consider
the situational variables that
might lead to more or less
obedience.
- Proximity
- In his baseline study, teacher could hear
the learner but not see him. In the
proximity variation, teacher and learner
were in the same room.
- Obedience level dropped to 40%.
- Touch proxmity
- Teacher forced the learners
hand onto an 'electroshock
plate'. Obedience dropped to
30%
- Teacher forced the learners
hand onto an 'electroshock
plate'. Obedience dropped to
30%
- Remote instruction
- Experimenter left the room and gave
instructions to the teacher by a telephone.
Obedience further reduced to 20.5%. Also
frequently pretended to give shocks.
- Experimenter left the room and gave
instructions to the teacher by a telephone.
Obedience further reduced to 20.5%. Also
frequently pretended to give shocks.
- Obedience level dropped to 40%.
- Decreased proximity allows people to
psychologically distance themselves from
the consequences of their actions. When
they were physically separated as in the
baseline experiment the teacher was less
aware of what they were doing.
- In his baseline study, teacher could hear
the learner but not see him. In the
proximity variation, teacher and learner
were in the same room.
- Location
- Conducted a variation
in a run down office
block rather than in
Yale University
- Obedience fell to 47.5%
- Obedience fell to 47.5%
- Prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study
legitimacy and authority. Participants were more
obedient there as they thought obedience was expected.
- Conducted a variation
in a run down office
block rather than in
Yale University
- Uniform
- In the baseline experiment the experimenter
wore a lab coat as a symbol of authority. In
the variation, the experimenter was called
away and replaced by an 'ordinary member of
the public' in everyday clothes.
- Obedience rate dropped to 20%
- Obedience rate dropped to 20%
- Uniforms encourage obedience
because they are widely
recognised symbols of authority
- In the baseline experiment the experimenter
wore a lab coat as a symbol of authority. In
the variation, the experimenter was called
away and replaced by an 'ordinary member of
the public' in everyday clothes.
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- Research Support
- Field experiment in NYC. Leonard Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates
dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkman outfit, security
guards uniform. Found that people were most likely to obey the orders
of someone in uniform rather than someone in a suit and tie.
- Field experiment in NYC. Leonard Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates
dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkman outfit, security
guards uniform. Found that people were most likely to obey the orders
of someone in uniform rather than someone in a suit and tie.
- Cross cultural replications
- Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used more realistic
procedure to study Dutch obedience. Participants
were ordered to say stressful things in an interview
to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% obeyed.
Also replicated using proximity.
- Suggests that Milgrams
findings cant only be
generalised to American
males
- Suggests that Milgrams
findings cant only be
generalised to American
males
- Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used more realistic
procedure to study Dutch obedience. Participants
were ordered to say stressful things in an interview
to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% obeyed.
Also replicated using proximity.
- Research Support
- Weaknesses
- Replications arent 'cross cultural'
- Smith and Bond (1998) identified only two replications between
1968 and 1985 took place in a non-western country.
- May not be appropriate to conclude
that Milgram's findings apply to
people of all cultures.
- May not be appropriate to conclude
that Milgram's findings apply to
people of all cultures.
- Smith and Bond (1998) identified only two replications between
1968 and 1985 took place in a non-western country.
- Low internal validity
- Participants may have been aware
that the experiment was faked.
- Orne and Holland (1968) pointed out that it is even more likely in
his variations because of the extra variables. E.G where the
experimenter is replaced with someone from the public was very
obviously contrived.
- Not obvious whether findings were genuine
or due to participants seeing through the
deception.
- Not obvious whether findings were genuine
or due to participants seeing through the
deception.
- Orne and Holland (1968) pointed out that it is even more likely in
his variations because of the extra variables. E.G where the
experimenter is replaced with someone from the public was very
obviously contrived.
- Participants may have been aware
that the experiment was faked.
- Replications arent 'cross cultural'
- Strengths
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.