Obedience: Situational Variables

What 3 situational variables were tested?

Proximity

Location

Uniform

In the baseline study, could the Teacher see or hear the Learner?

Could see them but not hear them

What are the 3 different variations for proximity?

Proximity variation

touch proximity variation

remote instruction variation

Where were the Teacher and the Learner in the proximity variation?

In the same room

What did the obedience rates drop too in the proximity variation?

65% - 40%

What did the Teacher do to the Learner in the touch proximity variation?

Teacher forced the Learners hand onto a shock plate

What was the obedience rate in the touch proximity variation?

30%

What did the Experimenter do in the remote instruction variation?

Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone

What did pps pretend to do during the remote instruction variation?

Pretended to give shocks

What was the obedience rate in the remote instruction variation?

20.5%

What did Milgram conclude after testing proximity for obedience?

Decreased proximity allows ppl to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

How did Milgram change the location of the study compared to the original setting?

Conducted in a run down building instead of Yale University

What did obedience drop to?

47.5%

What did Milgram conclude after testing the location for obedience?

Obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authorty so obedience was expected

In the baseline study what did the experimenter wear?

A grey lab coat

How did Milgram test uniform for obedience?

Experimenter was called away by an inconvenient phone call

His role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes

What did obedience drop to and why is this significant?

20%

The lowest of these variations

What did Milgram conclude after testing uniform for obedience?

Uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society

Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience

A03 Strength: Research support for the influence of situational variables

Bickmans confederate dressed in different outfits (jacket/tie , milkman, security man) and issued demands (pick up the litter) to ppl

Twice more likely to obey the security guard then the jacket/tie cofederate

Uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience

A03 Strength: Cross cultural replication of Milgram’s research

Psychologists worked with Dutch pps who were ordered to say stressful comments to the interviewees

Found 90% obedience which fell when person giving orders wasn’t present

Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to just American males - they’re valid across cultures

A03 Limitation: Low internal validity

Psychologists suggested the variations were even more likely to trigger suspicion due to extra experimental manipulation

In the uniform variation even Milgram said that some pps may have worked it out

Unclear wether results are due to obedience or because they were influenced by demand characteristics

A03 Limitation: Danger of the situational perspective

Milgrams conclusion suggest situational factors determine obedience

Mandel - offers an excuse for genocide

situational explanations hugely oversimplify causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors

May permit others to excuse destructive behaviours by using ‘I was just obeying orders’ as an excuse