AO3 - Milgram\'s situational variables PDF

Preview

Summary

Psychology Milgram theory explanation imitation and strength as well as evaluation of the paper 1....

Description

Evaluations for obedience – situational variables (AO3) Evaluation 1 – Research support In a field experiment (an experiment that takes place in a natural setting within which the researcher manipulates the IV and records the effect on the DV). In New York City, Leonard Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits – jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard, then the one dressed in jacket and tie.

Q1. Explain how this supports Milgram’s situational variables (uniform)?

Q2. Does this support or go against Milgram’s situational variables?

Evaluation 2 – cross-cultural explanations Wim Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed. The researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.

Q1. Is the above evaluation a strength or limitation of Milgram’s situational variables?

Q2. What does the above evaluation point suggest?

Counterpoint… However, replications of Milgram’s research are not very ‘cross-cultural’. Smith and Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in ‘non-western’ countries (India and Jordan). Other countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia and Scotland) are not that culturally different from the United States. For example, they have similar notions about the role of authority.

Q1. What does this suggest?

Evaluation 3 – Low internal validity One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked. Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline study. They point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulations of the variables. A good example, is the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram, recognised that this situation was so contrived, that some participants may well have worked out the truth.

Q1. What does this suggest?...