Proximity

• Milgram's variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room, found that obedience levels dropped to 40%.
• In Milgram's variation with 'touch proximity' where teachers had to put learners hands on an electric shock plate, obedience levels dropped to 30%.
• In Milgram's variation where the experimenter left the room and gave telephone instructions, obedience dropped to 20.5%.
• When a buffer, like a wall is used, obedience levels are higher, as participants cannot see the direct consequences of their actions.
• In Milgram's original study, the teacher and the leaner were in adjoining rooms. so the teacher could hear the learner but not see him.
• In the proximity variation, the teacher and the learner were in the same room, and obedience dropped from 65% to 40%.
• Teacher and Learner in the same room-> 40% the teacher can see the learners pain.
• Teacher placed the Learners had on a shock plate-> 30% the learner can see the pain/ consequences caused by their wrong actions.
• The teacher gave the learner the questions via a phone call-> 20.5% The pressure is lessened when experimenter gave orders over the phone.
• The variations investigating proximity were done under controlled conditions in the lab, so have high reliability.
• In Milgram's variation where the experimenter left the room and gave telephone instructions, obedience dropped to 20.5%. Supporting proximity as a situational variable.
• Milgram's variation with 'touch proximity' where teachers had to put learners hands on an electric shock plate, saw obedience levels drop to 30%. This supports proximity as a situational variable.
• Milgram's variation where the teacher and learner where seated in the same room, showed obedience levels to drop (40%). This supports proximity as a situational variable.
• Milgram's variation where the teacher and learner where seated in the same room, showed obedience levels to drop (40%). This supports proximity as a situational variable.