Milgram’s Situational variables affecting obedience 3

Milgram’s Variable : Proximity

• Proximity refers to how close / far away someone or something is.

• Destructive obedience is more easily achieved if the person/people being harmed are out of sight (if they can’t be seen, then this reduces moral strain).

• Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases as proximity increases (and vice versa)

  • The closer the ‘Teacher’ is to the ‘Learner’ , the less likely it is that obedience will follow

Proximity Variations

• In Milgram’s original (1963) study , the teacher and the learner were in separate rooms (the teacher could hear , but not see, the learner)

• Milgram conducted a series of variations to his original procedure to investigate the effects of proximity:

  • When the teacher and the learner were in the same room obedience (measured as the number of participants who went to 450 volts) dropped from 65% to 40%

• In another proximity variation , the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electromagnetic shock plate.

  • This variation resulted in obedience dropping to 30%

• Another variation involved a lack of proximity between the participant and the experimenter

  • The experimenter left the room after setting up the experiment

  • The experimenter then proceeded to issue instructions by phone

  • Obedience dropped even further in this condition ,with 20.5% of the participants going to 450 volts.

What did milgram conclude?

• Milgram concluded that proximity is a key variable in destructive obedience.

  • The more remote the victim, the easier it is to harm them.

Milgram’s Variable: Uniform

• If an individual perceives someone to be an authority figure , then they are much more likely to obey orders from them than from someone who appears to lack status or authority.

• Research by Bickman (1974) showed that people were more likely to obey a confederate dressed as a security guard than a milkman or a man in plain clothes (this condition resulted in the lowest levels of obedience) hence , a uniform confers authority , even when it’s not a police uniform.

• Obedience towards authority figures is something that is culturally transmitted

  • Obedience is taught both directly and indirectly

  • Obedience is taught via cultural and society norms as part of someone’s childhood experiences

Uniform Variations

• Most culture operate a social hierarchy in which authority figures occupy the highest positions and expect to be obeyed

  • Authority figures are often identifiable by their uniforms

  • Uniform, therefore , is a key marker of a legitimate authority.

• Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases as the authority of the experimenter decreases (uniform or no uniform)

• In Milgram’s original (1963) study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat

  • He ‘looked like’ he was officially in charge of the study

  • The grey lab coat served as his uniform

• Milgram conducted a variation to his original procedure to investigate the effect of uniform , as follows :

  • The experimenter (wearing the grey lab coat) pretended to have to leave the room

  • This original experimenter was replaced by a man in plain clothes

  • In this variation only 20% of participants went up to 450 volts

• Milgram concluded that a uniform confers authority, even when it is as sparse as a lab coat, confers authority on the wearer and thus results in higher levels of obedience.

Milgram’s Variable : Location

• One of the binding factors that explains obedience in Milgram’s original study is the location

  • Yale university is a highly prestigious college with reputation for excellence

  • Having the procedure take place at Yale Uni conferred status and prestige on the proceedings

  • The idea that participants were ‘helping science’ was supported by the choice of location

Location Variations

• Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases when the location of the study changes from high to low status

• Milgram conducted a variation to his original procedure to investigate the effect of location , as follows:

  • Milgram ran the study in a run-down building in Bridgeport , Connecticut

  • Participants were told the experiment was being run by the research association of bridgeport

  • -There was no mention at all of Yale uni

• In this variation , the percentage of participants who went to 450 volts dropped to 47.5%

• Milgram concluded that location affects obedience

  • the less credible, low-status location resulted in a lower level of obedience.

STRENGTH 1 EVAL OF MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

• Research such as Bickman’s (1974) outlined above lends support to the idea that situational variables such as uniform affects obedience

  • Bickman’s study was a field experiment with naive participants

  • It has high ecological validity due to the participants’ lack of awareness of their participation in the study

  • the study also used a degree of control with its three distinct conditions of the independent variable , which means that it has some reliability.

STRENGTH 2 EVAL OF MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

• Milgram stuck to the same standardised procedure in all of the variations he conducted ,which means that the results are easy to compare to check for reliability

LIMITATION 1 EVAL OF MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

• Some of the variations may have been more difficult to fake:

  • The proximity condition in which the teacher had to place the learner’s hand on the shock plate would mean that the learner had to produce some very convincing acting -not easy task to achieve

  • Any suspicion from the participants that they were being set up would impact the validity of the findings

LIMITATION 2 EVAL OF MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

• Milgram’s conclusion that situational variables explain destructive obedience could be abused for nefarious reasons

  • Acts of cruelty, tyranny or brutality could be excused as 'the situation made me do it,' which is a worrying idea