Obedience Situational Variables

Stanley Milgram

After Stanley Milgram conducted his first study on obedience, he carried out many variations to consider the situational variables that might lead to obedience.

Proximity (1)

In the baseline study the teacher could hear the learner but not see him

 

In the proximity variation, teacher and learner where in the same room and the obedience rate dropped fro 65% to 40%

 

•  (In proximity) the teacher had to force the learner's hand into a shock plate if the learner refused to place it there himself after giving the wrong answer, obedience rate was 30%

 

• (In remote), the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher via telephone. Obedience reduced to 20.5%, the participants also often pretended to give shocks.

Proximity (2)

Explanation = decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

-              the teacher and learner were physically separated the teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient.

Location (1)

The study was conducted in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale university setting of the baseline study, in this study obedience fell to 47.5%.

Location (2)

Explanation = the prestigious university environment gave milgrams study legitimacy and authority

• Participants where obedient in this location because they perceived that the experiment shared this legitimacy and the the obedience was expected.

• However, the obedience was still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure

 

Uniform (1)

In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform)

• In one variation he was called by a phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in is everyday clothes. Obedience dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations

Uniform (2)

Explanation = uniform encourages obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority.

• We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect some obedience because their authority is legitimate (it is granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.

A03 - Uniform obedience levels are powerful (Bickman)

Bickman’s confederates dressed in different outfits and issued demands to people in NYC

 

People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate

 

This shows that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience

A03 - validity across cultures, not just America (Meus and Raaijmakers)

Meeus and Raaijmakers worked with Dutch participants who were ordered to give comments to interviewees

 

They found 90% obedience, and obedience fell when proximity decreased, when the person giving orders was not present

 

This suggests that Milgram’s findings are not limited to American men but are valid across cultures and apply to women too. 

A03 - participants where play acting, as they knew this was a research experiment (perry)

Gina Perry suggests that only about half of the participants believed the shocks were real and mist of these participants were disobedient

 

Perry citied on of Milgram’s assistants who said that not full believers gave more shocks than those classified as having fully believed

 

This suggests that participants were ‘play acting’ as they were responding to demand characteristics.