SITUATIONAL VARIABLES AFFECTING OBEDIENCE: MILGRAM
~LOCATION~
Milgram moved the study from Yale university to a run-down office.
Obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%
The prestige of the university environment gave Milgram’s baseline study legitimacy and authority.
Therefore, when participants were no longer in a prestigious environment, they took the experiment less seriously
~UNIFORM~
The experimenter wore normal, everyday clothes rather than a lab coat
Obedience fell from 65% to 20%
Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority
We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because they have authority
~PROXIMITY~
When the teacher is in the same room as the learner, or when the researcher is not in the room giving commands face-to-face
Obedience rates fell from 65% to 40%, 30% and 20.5%
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
In the touch-proximity condition, the teacher had to force the learners hand if they refused to do it themselves
Obedience rates dropped because the participants were more aware of the harm they were inflicting
In the remote instruction condition, obedience fell because the participants could psychologically distance themselves from the demands of the researcher (which were given over the phone)
EVALUATION
Research Support
→ RESEARCH SUPPORT
One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience.
For example, in a field experiment, psychologists had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket & 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. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket & tie.
This supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
→ CROSS-CULTURAL REPLICATIONS
Another strength is that Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures.
For example, psychologists ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed.
The researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.
→ HIGH CONTROL OF VARIABLES
Another strength of Milgram’s research is that he only altered one variable at a time.
For example, in each variation he either altered location, uniform or proximity, while keeping the rest of the study the same.
This eliminates any confounding variables as cause and effect can be clearly identified as the changing variable.
This provides the study with high internal validity.
Conflicting Evidence
→ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY
One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked.
Psychologists point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables.
A good example of this is the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth.
Therefore, in all of Milgram’s studies, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants were responding to demand characteristics and ‘play-acting’.
~LOCATION~
Milgram moved the study from Yale university to a run-down office.
Obedience fell from 65% to 47.5%
The prestige of the university environment gave Milgram’s baseline study legitimacy and authority.
Therefore, when participants were no longer in a prestigious environment, they took the experiment less seriously
~UNIFORM~
The experimenter wore normal, everyday clothes rather than a lab coat
Obedience fell from 65% to 20%
Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority
We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because they have authority
~PROXIMITY~
When the teacher is in the same room as the learner, or when the researcher is not in the room giving commands face-to-face
Obedience rates fell from 65% to 40%, 30% and 20.5%
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
In the touch-proximity condition, the teacher had to force the learners hand if they refused to do it themselves
Obedience rates dropped because the participants were more aware of the harm they were inflicting
In the remote instruction condition, obedience fell because the participants could psychologically distance themselves from the demands of the researcher (which were given over the phone)
EVALUATION
Research Support
→ RESEARCH SUPPORT
One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience.
For example, in a field experiment, psychologists had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket & 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. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket & tie.
This supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
→ CROSS-CULTURAL REPLICATIONS
Another strength is that Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures.
For example, psychologists ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed.
The researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.
→ HIGH CONTROL OF VARIABLES
Another strength of Milgram’s research is that he only altered one variable at a time.
For example, in each variation he either altered location, uniform or proximity, while keeping the rest of the study the same.
This eliminates any confounding variables as cause and effect can be clearly identified as the changing variable.
This provides the study with high internal validity.
Conflicting Evidence
→ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY
One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked.
Psychologists point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables.
A good example of this is the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth.
Therefore, in all of Milgram’s studies, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants were responding to demand characteristics and ‘play-acting’.
