Evaluation of Milgram's Situational Variables

Research support

Research support

• Strength - other studies have also demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience

• Field experiment by Bickman (1974) had three confederates in different outfits (smart, milkman, security guard) and got them to ask citizens to perform simple tasks

• People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as the guard rather than the man in a jacket and tie

• Supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience

Cross-cultural replications

• Strength - Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures

• Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) in a more realistic scenario ordered participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed

• Also used a proximity variation with the person giving the orders wasn’t present - obedience dropped

• Suggests that Milgram’s findings on obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are also valid across cultures and apply to women too

Counterpoint to cross-cultural replications

• Smith and Bond (1998) identified just 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan - both cultures very different to the US

• Whereas other countries involved (Spain, Australia, Scotland) are culturally similar to the US when regarding their notions of authority

• Therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings (including the situational variables_ apply to people in all or most cultures)

Low internal validity

• Limitation - participants may have been aware that the procedure was fake

• Milgram recognised that in his uniform variation (where the Experimenter was a ‘member of the public’) that some of the participants figured out the truth

• Therefore it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just ‘play-acted’ aka responded to demand characteristics

The danger of the situational perspective

• Milgram’s research findings support a situational explanation of obedience (proximity, location and uniform)

• But this perspective has been criticised by psychologists as it offers an excuse for evil behaviour.

• For example, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders

• Milgram’s explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors (such as personality), implying that the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control