Obedience: Situational variables

Situational variables

- After Milgram conducted his first study on obedience, he carried out a large number of variations in order to consider the situational variables that might create greater or lesser obedience

Proximity

- In Milgram's baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In this variation, teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%

Location

- Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale University setting of the baseline study. In this, obedience fell to 47.5%

Uniform

- In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a lab coat as a symbol of his authority. In one variation, the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. Obedience rate dropped to 20%

Evaluation- Strengths (1)

• Other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience. In a field experiment,

• Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits- jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit, and a security guard's uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for a parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie

• This supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience

Evaluation- Weaknesses

- Low internal validity; participants may have been aware the procedure was faked. Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study. They point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the manipulation of variables. For example, the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a 'member of the public'. Even Milgram recognised that the situation was so contrived that participants may have well worked out the truth

- Therefore, it is unclear whether the findings are due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just 'play-acted' (responded to demand characteristics)

Proximity- Touch proximity variation

- In this variation, the 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. Obedience dropped further to 30%

Proximity- Remote instruction variation

- In this variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. Obedience reduced to 20.5%. The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks

Proximity explanation

- This being decreased allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, e.g. when the teacher and learner were physically separated (as in the baseline study), the teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so they were more obedient

Location explanation

- The prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient here because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy (legitimacy of authority) and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived the 'scientific' nature of the procedure

Uniform explanation

- These 'encourage' obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in one of these is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (granted by society). Someone without one of these has less of a right to expect our obedience

Evaluation- Strengths (2)

• Cross cultural replications of Milgram's findings.

• Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. The researchers also replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically

• This suggests that Milgram's findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too

• HOWEVER, studies have still tended to focus on countries similar to the US such as the Netherlands, Spain and Australia. These countries have similar opinions to America when considering the role of authority. Smith and Bond found only 2 studies between 1968 and 1985 that took place in Jordan and India.