Variations
For the exam, you must know one variation that was conducted. You must be able to describe this variation in detail using the APFCE method. Note that some points will be the same as the original.
Change of location
Aim: To see whether obedience would decrease if conducted in a less prestigious setting.
Procedure: The experiment was conducted in an office suite in Bridgeport away from the University supposedly by a private research company in a downtown office. PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw and asked to give shocks to the learner when they gave an incorrect answer. They were prompted by an experimenter if they did not give the shock, they were not wearing a lab coat.
Findings: Obedience dropped to 47.5%.
Conclusion: Obedience decreased in a less prestigious environment. This could be as it was seen as less legitimate and the participant was less likely to be in the agentic state as they did not feel the experimenter would take responsibility.
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain why obedience varies depending on the setting and who is giving the order. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
PP had to hold down the learners hand – removal of the buffer
Aim: To see whether obedience would decrease if the participant could see the harm they were giving. To see the effects on obedience when the buffer is removed.
Procedure: PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw and asked to give shocks to the learner when they gave an incorrect answer. They were prompted by an experimenter if they did not give the shock. At each incorrect answer the victim was shocked only when the teacher forced his hand on a shock plate. At 150 volts, the learner refused to place his hand on the plate, and the experimenter ordered the subject to hold the victim's hand on the plate
Findings: 30% of pp’s obeyed
Conclusion: when buffers are removed, obedience decreases. This may be because pp’s feel more responsible as they can see the consequences of their actions, so they are in the autonomous rather than agentic state.
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain the rise of cyber bullying, the computer acts as a buffer and people who do this may not see the consequences of their actions. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
Distant authority figure
Aim: To see the effects on obedience when the experimenter gives instructions from a distance
Procedure: PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw and asked to give shocks to the learner when they gave an incorrect answer. The experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room
Findings: Obedience fell to 20.5% and many participants cheated and missed out shocks or gave less voltage than ordered to
Conclusion: Obedience decreases if the authority figure is not present. This could be because the participant feels more responsible for their actions
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain why students stop working in lessons when the teacher leaves the room. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
Two teacher condition
Aim: To see the effects on obedience when the participant can diminish responsibility of giving a shock to another person.
Procedure: PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw along with an assistant teacher who was a confederate, and that the real participant could instruct press the switches to deliver an electric shock.
Findings: 95% shocked to the maximum 450 volts
Conclusion: Obedience increased which could be due to diminished responsibility. As there was another person who was giving the shocks, the real participant may have been more in the agentic state because they had less responsibility
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain behaviour that occurs in gangs – each person believes they are not responsible and that someone else is to blame. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
For the exam, you must know one variation that was conducted. You must be able to describe this variation in detail using the APFCE method. Note that some points will be the same as the original.
Change of location
Aim: To see whether obedience would decrease if conducted in a less prestigious setting.
Procedure: The experiment was conducted in an office suite in Bridgeport away from the University supposedly by a private research company in a downtown office. PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw and asked to give shocks to the learner when they gave an incorrect answer. They were prompted by an experimenter if they did not give the shock, they were not wearing a lab coat.
Findings: Obedience dropped to 47.5%.
Conclusion: Obedience decreased in a less prestigious environment. This could be as it was seen as less legitimate and the participant was less likely to be in the agentic state as they did not feel the experimenter would take responsibility.
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain why obedience varies depending on the setting and who is giving the order. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
PP had to hold down the learners hand – removal of the buffer
Aim: To see whether obedience would decrease if the participant could see the harm they were giving. To see the effects on obedience when the buffer is removed.
Procedure: PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw and asked to give shocks to the learner when they gave an incorrect answer. They were prompted by an experimenter if they did not give the shock. At each incorrect answer the victim was shocked only when the teacher forced his hand on a shock plate. At 150 volts, the learner refused to place his hand on the plate, and the experimenter ordered the subject to hold the victim's hand on the plate
Findings: 30% of pp’s obeyed
Conclusion: when buffers are removed, obedience decreases. This may be because pp’s feel more responsible as they can see the consequences of their actions, so they are in the autonomous rather than agentic state.
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain the rise of cyber bullying, the computer acts as a buffer and people who do this may not see the consequences of their actions. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
Distant authority figure
Aim: To see the effects on obedience when the experimenter gives instructions from a distance
Procedure: PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw and asked to give shocks to the learner when they gave an incorrect answer. The experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room
Findings: Obedience fell to 20.5% and many participants cheated and missed out shocks or gave less voltage than ordered to
Conclusion: Obedience decreases if the authority figure is not present. This could be because the participant feels more responsible for their actions
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain why students stop working in lessons when the teacher leaves the room. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
Two teacher condition
Aim: To see the effects on obedience when the participant can diminish responsibility of giving a shock to another person.
Procedure: PP’s were allocated the role of teacher in the rigged draw along with an assistant teacher who was a confederate, and that the real participant could instruct press the switches to deliver an electric shock.
Findings: 95% shocked to the maximum 450 volts
Conclusion: Obedience increased which could be due to diminished responsibility. As there was another person who was giving the shocks, the real participant may have been more in the agentic state because they had less responsibility
Evaluation: Took place in the USA so not generalisable to other cultures. Followed a standardised procedure of a rigged draw and pp’s being allocated the role of teacher, therefore can be replicated and is reliable. Application – can explain behaviour that occurs in gangs – each person believes they are not responsible and that someone else is to blame. Low ecological validity as giving electric shocks is not a realistic measure of obedience as it is an unrealistic task. Unethical as pp’s were deceived as they were not giving real shocks, therefore they did not give fully informed consent, however the experiment would not have worked if they had known.
