Situational variables that affect obedience

What was the obedience rate for Milgrams study?

65%

What are the 5 different variations?

• proximity

• touch proximity

• remote authority variation

• venue

What is proximity?

The victim was placed in the same room as the participant, rather than being hidden behind a screen.

What is touch proximity?

The participant had to hold the victim’s hand down onto the electrode in order to give the shocks.

What is remote authority variation?

The experimenter left the room and issued instructions by telephone.

What is venue?

The experiment was moved away from Yale University and conducted in a run- down office block in the centre of town.

What is Legitimacy of the Experimenter?

The experiment was varied by gettinga casually dressed “non-professor”, no lab coat.

Is the obedience rate for proximity higher or lower then the original 65%?

Rate= 40%

When they are in closer proximity to the victim, the participant becomes more aware of the harm they are causing to another person and cannot psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Is the obedience rate for touch proximity higher or lower then the original 65%?

rate= 30%

When they are in closer proximity to the victim, the participant becomes more aware of the harm they are causing to another person and cannot psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Is the obedience rate for touch Remote Authority Variation higher or lower then the original 65%?

rate= 20.5%

When the participant is further away from the authority figure, they feel less pressure to act as an ‘agent’ for the authority figure and feel responsibility for their actions.

Is the obedience rate for venue higher or lower then the original 65%?

rate= 47.5%

A run-down office block is a less legitimate environment than the prestigious Yale University. Therefore, participants perceive the experimenter (and study) to have less authority.

Is the obedience rate for Legitimacy of the Experimenter higher or lower then the original 65%?

rate= 20%

The lab coat was perceived to be a ‘uniform’ and uniforms encourage obedience because we perceive the people wearing them to have legitimate authority. Therefore, we are less likely to obey an individual dressed in everyday clothing.

Why is uniform an important part of the obedience process?

• In Milgram’s original study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (i.e. a uniform). 

• In this variation, the experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure and replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothes. 

• The obedience rate dropped to 20%.

• A uniform is a symbol of legitimate authority and in society we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience due to the legitimacy of their authority. Someone without a uniform does not have the same right, and therefore we are less likely to obey.

What is the supporting evidence for uniform?

• Bickman’s (1974) field experiment in New York City

• Three confederates were dressed in different outfits - a jacket and tie; a milkman’s outfit; and a security guard’s uniform. 

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

• People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than one dress in a jacket and tie.

• This demonstrates that uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience.

How did proximity effect the results?

• in Milgram’s original study, the teacher could hear the learner but could not see him.

• Proximity Variation - the teacher and learner were placed in the same room. Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40%.

• 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 after giving a wrong answer. Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 30%.

• Remote Instruction Variation - the experimenter left the room and gave instructions via telephone. Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 20.5% and learners frequently pretended to give shocks.

How did location impact the results?

• In Milgram’s original study, the setting was Yale University, a prestigious educational institution in Connecticut, USA.

• Milgram conducted the study again in a run-down office block in the same manner as the original study (i.e. experiment in a grey lab coat, learner in a separate room, etc.)

• The environment of Yale University enhanced the legitimacy and authority of the original study as participants understood how prestigious it was. 

• In the run-down office block, despite the experimenter still having his ‘uniform’, the location itself reduced the legitimacy of authority and therefore participants were less likely to obey - obedience rates fell to 47.5%.

• However, participants still perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure in the office block which explains why the obedience rate is higher than other variations of the study.

Limitation - Validity

Most research into situational factors in obedience lacks ecological validity. Additionally, many of the tasks have questionable mundane realism.

The procedure of Milgram’s study does not involve real life situations and therefore lacks ecological validity.

However, Bickman’s study is a field experiment which supports Milgram’s study and enhances the ecological validity of the findings

Orne & Holland (1968) argue that participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked, and this is even more likely in his variations due to the manipulation of variables (e.g. when the experimenter is replaced by a member of the public). Therefore it is unclear whether participants are genuinely obeying, or showing demand characteristics. This reduces the internal validity of these studies.

Evaluation - Ethical Issues

• Participants were deceived

  • They were told the allocation of roles was random (it wasn’t)

  • They believed Mr Wallace to be a real participant (he was a confederate)

  • They believed the shocks to be real (they weren’t)

• However - it could be argued that the deception was necessary for the internal validity of the study, and Milgram debriefed the participants after the study.

Issue & Debate - Nature vs Nurture

• The theory ignores the role of personality (nurture)

• This hugely oversimplifies examples of obedient behaviour and perhaps suggest that extreme situational factors can determine obedience.

Further research

• Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) replicated Milgram’s research with Dutch participants.

• The ppts were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job and 90% of ppts obeyed.

• Similarly, they replicated Milgram’s proximity variation and found that obedience decreased dramatically when the person giving the orders was not present.

• This demonstrates that Milgram’s findings are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women also.