Obedience: Milgram's Situational Variables

What is a a situational variable?

Features of an immediate physical and social environments which may influence a person’s behaviour (such as proximity, location and uniform).

What is the alternative of situational variables?

Dispositional variables; where behaviour is explained in terms of personality.

What situational variables did Milgram study to investigate what might lead to an increase or decrease of conformity?

• Proximity

• Location

• Uniform

What did Milgram do to investigate the effect of proximity on obedience?

Refers to the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to or the physical closeness of the teacher to the victim (learner) in Milgram’s studies.

• In Milgram’s baseline study, the teacher could hear but not see the learner

• In Milgram’s proximity variation, the teacher and the learner were in the same room

- Obedience dropped from the original 65% to 40% (measured as the number of participants who went to 450 volts)

• In the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an ‘electroshock plate’ if the learner refused to place it there himself

- Obedience dropped further to 30%

• In the remote instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone (lack of proximity)

- Obedience reduced to 20.5%

Why did obedience decrease as proximity increased?

Because decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

• For example, 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.

What did Milgram do to investigate the effect of location on obedience?

Refers to the place where an order is issued.

• Status or prestige associated with the location

• Milgram conducted a variation in a run down office blocker rather than in the prestigious Yale University setting of the baseline study

- Obedience fell to 47.5%

Why did obedience increase when the location was more prestigious?

The prestigious environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the experiment shared this legitimacy 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.

What did Milgram do to investigate the effect of uniform on obedience?

People in position often have a specific outfits (which are identifiable) that is symbolic of their authority, e.g. police officers and judges. This indicates that they are entitled to expect our obedience.

• 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 role of the experiment 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%, the lowest of these variations

Why did obedience increase and decrease with uniform?

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 obedience

How have other studies demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience?

• In a field experiment in New York City, Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in three different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit, and a security guards uniform

• The confederates stood individually in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as litter picking or handing over a coin for the parking meter.

• Bickman found that 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 uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience.

How has Milgram’s findings been replicated in other cultures?

• Meeus et al (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants

• The participants (men and women) were ordered to say stressful things to an job interviewee (a confederate) desperate for a job

• They found that 90% of the participants obeyed

• The researchers also tested the effects of proximity; when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased drastically

- This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or males, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.

What is a counterpoint to the claim that Milgram’s research can be generalised to different countries?

Smith et al. (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in ‘Non-western’ countries (India and Jordan). Other countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) culturally quite similar to the US, as they have similar notions about the role of authority. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings (including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures.

What is a limitation of Milgram’s research?

It may not reflect obedience to authority.

• The evidence from Perry (2023) suggests that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real and most of these participants were disobedient

• Further evidence; Perry et al (2023) cites the testimony of one of Milgram’s assistants who reported that participants classified as having ‘not fully believed’ administered more shocks than those classified as having ‘fully believed’

• Orne and Holland point out that it is even more likely in his variation because of the extra manipulation of variables

- A good example is the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’; even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived (deliberately created) that some participants may well have worked out the truth - this suggests that participants behaviour was the result of ‘play acting’ (i.e. they responded to demand characteristics) meaning Milgram was not actually measuring obedience.