Situational Variables in Obedience

A01-Milgrims variation

• conducted several variations of his experiment, to investigate the factors most likely to affect obedience

A01-Proximity

• Baseline Study: Teacher and learner were in separate rooms (could hear, not see). Obedience was highest.

• Proximity Variation: Teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience dropped to 40%.

• Touch Proximity Variation: Teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. Obedience dropped to 30%.

• Key Conclusion: Greater physical distance makes it easier to ignore the harm caused, which increases obedience. Closer distance makes the consequences real, which reduces obedience

A01-Location

• In Milgram’s original study, the locations was the prestigious Yale University. When Milgram moved his study to a run-down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%.

• This is because the university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected

A01-Uniform

• 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. The obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations.

• This is because uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience, as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority.

A03-Research Support

• Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used three male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard; and one dressed in ordinary

• The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parkin

• On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%.

A03-Cultural Replications

• Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants and found 90% of participants obeyed,

• when ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. It was also found that when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.

A03-Demand Characteristics

• The participants’ behaviour may not reflect obedience to authority.

  
  
  

• Evidence from Perry (2013) suggests that only about half of the participants believed the shocks were real and most of these participants were disobedient. In a recent article, Perry et al. (2020) cited testimony from one of Milgram’s assistants (Taketo Murata) who reported that participants classified as having ‘not fully believed’ administered more shocks than those classified as having ‘fully believed’, suggesting that participants may have been ‘play-acting’.

A03-Dangers of Situational Variables

• Mandel argues that this perspective provides an excuse for destructive obedience as people can excuse their antisocial behaviour because it isn’t their fault

• Furthermore, Milgrim’s perspective overlook the role of dispositional factors. Some people may be more obedient either as a consequence of genetics or because of their upbringing.

• This suggests that Milgrim‘s explanation based so on situational factors is likely to over simplify the causes of obedience and Mandel further argues that ultimately attributing the holocaust to situational purchases while ignoring the role of disposition is offensive to survivors.