3a. Situational variables affecting obedience

What happened after Milgram conducted his first study on obedience?

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 lead to more or less obedience.

What are the 3 variations Milgram did?

3 variations Milgram did=

• proximity

• location

• uniform

How did proximity vary Milgram’s original study, and what % did obedience go to?

Proximity varied Milgram’s study=

• In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him.

• In the proximity variation, Teacher and Learner were in the same room. The obedience rate dropped from the original 65% to 40%.

• In the touch proximity 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%.

• In the remote instruction 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.

How did location vary Milgram’s original study, and what % did obedience go to?

Location varied Milgram’s study=

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

The prestigious 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. However, obedience was still quite high in the offi ce block because the participants perceived the ‘scienti c’ nature of the procedure.

How did uniform vary Milgram’s orignal study, and what % did obedience go to?

Uniform varied Milgram’s study=

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

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

Uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (i.e. it is granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.

What can the variations be explained by legitimacy of authority and agentic state?

Legitimacy of authority= location and uniform variations

Agentic state= proximity variation

In both cases, obedience lowered as the ppt could no longer diffuse the responsibility for their own actions