Describe how situational variables have been found to affect obedience. Discuss what these situational variables tell us about why we obey. (Total 16 marks)

Research by Milgram identified several situational variables that affect obedience, including proximity, location, and uniform. Proximity refers to the physical closeness of the authority figure to the participant. In Milgram’s study, obedience dropped from 65% to 40% when the experimenter gave instructions from another room. Location also plays a role, as obedience rates decreased to 47.5% when the study was conducted in a run-down office building instead of Yale University. Uniform, a symbol of authority, was shown to increase obedience, as demonstrated in Bickman’s study, where participants were more likely to follow orders from someone dressed as a security guard compared to someone in civilian clothes.

One strength of research into situational variables is the strong empirical support. (Point) Milgram’s systematic manipulation of variables, such as proximity and location, showed consistent effects on obedience. For instance, moving the experimenter to another room significantly reduced obedience. (Because) This demonstrates the causal influence of these variables on obedience behaviour. (Why) However, these findings may lack ecological validity due to the artificial nature of Milgram’s experimental setup. (Counterargument) Real-world obedience scenarios are often more complex, involving factors such as interpersonal relationships, which may not be fully captured in a laboratory setting.

A weakness of research into situational variables is the cultural and temporal bias of Milgram’s study. (Point) The original research was conducted in 1960s America, a time and culture where respect for authority was highly emphasised. (Because) This limits the generalisability of the findings to other cultures or modern societies where individualism may play a greater role. (Why) However, subsequent replications of Milgram’s study in different cultural settings, such as collectivist cultures, have found similar patterns, suggesting some universality in the role of situational factors. (Counterargument)

Another strength of the research is its practical applications. (Point) Understanding how situational factors influence obedience has been used to improve compliance in healthcare and other professional settings. For example, staff wearing uniforms in hospitals may enhance patients’ trust and adherence to medical advice. (Because) This demonstrates the value of research into situational variables in informing real-world practices. (Why) However, the potential misuse of this knowledge, such as in marketing or authoritarian control, raises ethical concerns. (Counterargument)

A further weakness is that the explanation overemphasises situational factors and ignores dispositional factors. (Point) For example, Milgram’s research does not fully account for individual differences, such as personality traits, which can influence obedience. (Because) This is problematic because it suggests that obedience is not entirely determined by external variables, reducing the comprehensiveness of the explanation. (Why) However, situational variables still provide a valuable framework for understanding the context-dependent nature of obedience, even if other factors also contribute. (Counterargument)

By examining situational variables such as proximity, location, and uniform, Milgram’s research provides valuable insights into the factors that influence obedience. Despite some limitations, the findings have broad implications for understanding authority and compliance in both theoretical and practical contexts.