Obedience: Situational Variables (5)

What are situational variables and how did Milgram investigate this?

Milgram carried out different variations of his baseline study to consider the situational variables (factors) that could affect obedience.

What are the 3 situational variables that Milgram looked at?

1. Proximity

2. Location

3. Uniform

What is proximity?

Physical closeness of an authority figure to the participant.

What was the proximity in Milgram’s baseline study?

The teacher could hear the learner but not see him

What was Milgram’s proximity variation?

Teacher and learner were in the same room

What were the findings of Milgram’s proximity variation?

Obedience levels dropped from the original 65% to 40%

What was Milgram’s touch proximity variation?

Teacher had to force the Learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer.

What were the findings of Milgram’s touch proximity variation?

Obedience dropped to 30%

What was Milgram’s remote instruction variation?

Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone.

What were the findings of Milgram’s remote instruction variation?

Obedience reduced to 20.5%

What was Milgram’s conclusion for his proximity variations?

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

What was Milgram’s location variation?

He conducted the study in a run-down office block.

What were the findings Milgram’s location variation?

Obedience fell to 47.5%

What were the conclusions of Milgram’s location variation?

The prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority.

PPs were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected.

What was Milgram’s uniform variation?

The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in everyday clothes.

What were the findings Milgram’s uniform variation?

Obedience dropped to 20%

What were the conclusions of Milgram’s uniform variation?

Uniforms encourage obedience because they are recognised as symbols of authority.

We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (it is granted by society)

What is a strength of Milgram’s research into the situational variables in obedience?

Research support

In a field experiment in NYC, Bickman had 3 confederates dress in different outfits (jacket and tie, milkman’s outfits and security guard uniform).

The confederates each 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 than the one in a jacket and tie.

This supports the view that a situational variable such as uniform has a powerful effect on obedience.

What is another strength of Milgram’s research into the situational variables in obedience?

His findings have been replicated in other cultures (CROSS-CULTURAL REPLICATIONS)

Meeus and Raaijmakers ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job.

90% of the participants obeyed.

They also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity → When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased!

This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are valid across cultures and apply to women too.

COUNTERPOINT

Milgram’s research is not very cross-cultural

Smith and Bond identified only 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan (both are culturally different from the US)

Thus, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings apply to people in all cultures.

What is a limitation of Milgram’s research into the situational variables in obedience?

Low internal validity

Orne and Holland said PPs may have been aware that the procedure was faked

E.g. when the experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may have worked out the truth!

Thus, it is unclear whether Milgram’s findings are genuinely due to obedience or if the PPs saw through the deception and ‘play-acted’

What is another limitation of Milgram’s research into the situational variables in obedience?

Mandel argues that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour.

He says it is offensive to Holocaust survivors as it suggests that the Nazis were simply obeying orders.

It also ignores dispositional factors (e.g. personality)