Situational Factors Research (OCR GCSE Psychology): Revision Note

Situational factors core study: Bickman (1974): the social power of uniform

Background

• Previous research, such as Milgram’s (1963) obedience experiments, showed that people are more likely to obey when an authority figure is present

• The clothing a person wears can signal authority and influence how others respond to them

  • Joseph and Alex (1972) suggested that clothing can indicate status, legitimacy, and authority, which may make people more likely to follow orders

• Bickman (1974) wanted to test whether this effect would occur in real-life, everyday situations.

Aim

• To investigate whether wearing a uniform increases obedience to orders given by a stranger in public settings

Experiment 1

Method

• Type of study:

  • Field experiment conducted on the streets of Brooklyn, New York

• Design:

  • Independent measures design

    • Each participant experienced only one condition (one uniform and one scenario)

• Variables:

  • IV: Type of uniform (civilian, milkman, or guard)

  • DV: Whether the participant obeyed the command

• Sample:

  • An opportunity sample

    • 153 adult pedestrians aged 18–61 years who happened to be walking by

• Procedure:

  • Four male experimenters of similar build and size carried out three different requests of the participants:

    • Picking up a bag – 'Pick up this bag for me'

    • Dime and meter – 'Give this person a dime for the parking meter'

    • Bus stop (no standing) – 'You can’t stand here, it’s against the law'

  • Each experimenter wore one of three uniforms:

    • Civilian: Sports jacket and tie

    • Milkman: White uniform carrying milk bottles

    • Guard: Police-style uniform with badge and insignia (no gun)

  • Obedience was recorded when the participant followed the instruction

Results

• There was no significant difference in obedience between the civilian and the milkman uniforms across all three scenarios

• The guard was obeyed significantly more than the civilian

Conclusion

• People are more likely to obey someone who appears to hold authority, such as someone wearing a uniform, even in simple, everyday situations

Experiment 2

Method

• Type of study:

  • Field experiment, using the same dime and meter scenario in Experiment 1, but conducted in a different part of Brooklyn

• Sample:

  • 48 adult pedestrians (average age 46 years)

• Variables:

  • IV 1: Type of authority (guard vs civilian)

  • IV 2: Surveillance (experimenter being watched vs not watched)

• Procedure:

  • Surveillance condition: The experimenter stood nearby while the participant was ordered to give the confederate a dime

  • Non-surveillance condition: The experimenter gave the order, then walked away before the participant acted

Results

• The guard was obeyed more than the civilian

• Surveillance made no difference

  • Obedience occurred whether or not the authority figure was present

Conclusion

• Obedience was influenced by the power of a uniform, not by surveillance

• People still obeyed even when the authority figure had left the scene.

Experiment 3A

Method

• Type of study and sample:

  • Questionnaire was conducted with 141 college students

• Procedure:

  • Students were shown descriptions of 29 scenarios, including the three from Experiment 1

  • They rated who they thought would be seen as more legitimate or more likely to be obeyed — a guard, milkman, or civilian

Results

• Participants did not rate the guard as significantly more legitimate than the other uniforms

• Some new scenarios were judged as more legitimate than those used in Experiment 1

Conclusion

• People’s perceptions of authority don’t always match their actual behaviour

• What people say they would do in an obedience situation often differs from what they actually do

Experiment 3B

Method

• Type of study and sample:

  • Questionnaire-based field study using 189 students from Smith College who had not taken part in Experiment 3A

• Procedure:

  • Participants were asked to predict what they and others would do in the same obedience scenarios as Experiment 1

Results

• Participants underestimated real obedience levels — they thought fewer people would obey the guard than actually did in the field study

Conclusion

• People often believe they would resist authority, but in reality, situational cues such as uniform and perceived status strongly influence compliance

Overall conclusions (across all experiments)

• Uniforms increase obedience because they symbolise authority and legitimacy

• Perceived social status affects how people respond to orders

• Situational factors (not personality) have a powerful influence on behaviour

• What people say they’d do often doesn’t match what they actually do

• Obedience can occur even without direct supervision or surveillance

Criticisms

• Sampling bias

  • Bickman used opportunity sampling, which limits representativeness

  • People’s obedience may vary depending on mood, time pressure, or situation

• Cultural bias

  • The study took place in one American city in the 1970s

  • People from different cultures or historical periods may respond differently to authority

• Ethical concerns

  • Participants were deceived and gave no informed consent

  • They may have felt embarrassed or pressured and were not debriefed

• Lack of control over extraneous variables

  • Being a field experiment, variables like time of day, weather, or traffic could have affected results

    • E.g. people might obey less in the rain

• Gender bias

  • All experimenters were male, and all wore male-coded uniforms (guard, milkman)

  • Reactions might differ with female authority figures