Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience and
discuss what this tells us about
why people obey
AO1:
, milgram tested the effect of proximity, location and uniform on obedience
proximity → had the teacher and learner in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% → 40%
when teacher had to force the learner's hands → 30%
Y Instructions over the phone → 20.5%
Location → Yale was 65% but run down of ce, obedience was 47.5%
Y uniform → lab coat = 65% but "normal clothes" was only 20%
A03:
lab studies:
Y high control of variables → con dent it's the situational change causing the changes in obedience
Supports agent state and legitimacy of authority as valid explanations
Real world application:
F Useful for understanding obedience in military settings (Nazi)
Shows how situational pressures can lead to people obeying destructive authonly
Ethics:
deception → participants didn't know the real aim of the experiment
, many were extremely distressed and felt guilty
reduces credability and limits acceptance of findings
counter
Debrief:
Milgram fully debriefed participants and many said they were happy to have taken part
& This increases confidence that the findings were meaningful and didn't cause rong-term harm
individual differences:
Not everyone obeyed so ignores individual differences
, Personality, morality and empathy all in uence behaviour
Situational factors alone cannot fully explain obedience
Temporal validity:
Conducted in 1960s → post-war culture so people were naturally more obedient
, Culture has changed since then and today, people are more likely to challenge authority
Replications have shown mixed results, some showing lower obedience and some higher obedience
The inconsistency means his results can’t be applied universally across time - reducing validity
fi flfi
discuss what this tells us about
why people obey
AO1:
, milgram tested the effect of proximity, location and uniform on obedience
proximity → had the teacher and learner in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% → 40%
when teacher had to force the learner's hands → 30%
Y Instructions over the phone → 20.5%
Location → Yale was 65% but run down of ce, obedience was 47.5%
Y uniform → lab coat = 65% but "normal clothes" was only 20%
A03:
lab studies:
Y high control of variables → con dent it's the situational change causing the changes in obedience
Supports agent state and legitimacy of authority as valid explanations
Real world application:
F Useful for understanding obedience in military settings (Nazi)
Shows how situational pressures can lead to people obeying destructive authonly
Ethics:
deception → participants didn't know the real aim of the experiment
, many were extremely distressed and felt guilty
reduces credability and limits acceptance of findings
counter
Debrief:
Milgram fully debriefed participants and many said they were happy to have taken part
& This increases confidence that the findings were meaningful and didn't cause rong-term harm
individual differences:
Not everyone obeyed so ignores individual differences
, Personality, morality and empathy all in uence behaviour
Situational factors alone cannot fully explain obedience
Temporal validity:
Conducted in 1960s → post-war culture so people were naturally more obedient
, Culture has changed since then and today, people are more likely to challenge authority
Replications have shown mixed results, some showing lower obedience and some higher obedience
The inconsistency means his results can’t be applied universally across time - reducing validity
fi flfi
