Situational Factor - Milgram

• What was the original location of Milgram's experiment?

  Lab at Yale University
• How did changing the location affect obedience in Milgram's study?

  Obedience dropped to 47.5%
• What was the obedience percentage when the learner was in the same room as the teacher?

  40%
• What happened to obedience when the teacher had to physically force the learner's hand?

  Obedience dropped to 30%
• What was the obedience percentage when the experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone?

  20.5%
• How did the presence of a confederate in ordinary clothes affect obedience?

  Obedience dropped to 20%
• What are the situational factors affecting obedience in Milgram's study?

  • Location
  • Proximity
  • Uniform
• What did Aronson (1974) find regarding the uniform variable's effect on obedience?

  Uniforms convey legitimacy of authority
• What was the obedience rate among nurses in Hofling's study?

  21 out of 22 nurses obeyed
• How does Hofling's study support the location variable?

  Formal settings increase perceived legitimacy
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of Hofling's study?

  Strengths:

  • Supports location variable
  • High real-life applicability

  
  

  Weaknesses:

  • Goes against proximity variable
• How was the location variable manipulated?

  Changed setting from a lab at Yale university (legitimate and prestigious) to a run-down office building.

  Obedience dropped to 47.5% who delivered the lethal shock (450v)
• How was the proximity variable manipulated?

  1. How close the learner was to the teacher - when the ppt was in the same as the learner obedience dropped to 40%
  2. How close the teacher was to the learner - when the ppt had to psychically force the learners hand onto the electroshock plate, obedience dropped to 30%
  3. The distance of the authority figure- when the experimenter left the room, the delivered instructions over the phone. Obedience dropped to 20.5%
• How was the uniform variable manipulated?

  The experimenter was replaced by another ppt (confederate) and the lab coat was replaced with ordinary clothes. Obedience dropped to 20%
• AO3 strength - Bickman

  • supports the uniform variable as having an effect on obedience
  • The public were 2x more likely to obey a ‘security guard’ versus a ‘milkman’ or ‘businessman’ (Confederates)
• AO3 strength - Raaijmakers

  • supports proximity variable
  • Dutch ppts told to say stressful things to someone desperate for a job during an interview
  • Obedience was 90%
  • When the person giving the orders wasn't present, obedience levels dropped
  • Has applicability outside of American culture and suggests the gender bias in milgrams original study isn't an issue
  • Increases ecological and population validity
• AO3 strength + weakness - Hofling

  • against proximity variable, supports location
  • Nurses - ordered by a fake doctor over the phone to administer an unknown drug at 2x label dosage
  • 21/22 nurses obeyed
  • Proximity- obedience would be low when orders are given via phone but obedience was 95%
  • Location- formal setting, which is perceived legitimately =more likely to obey
  • More generalizable to real life experiences (mundane realism)
• AO3 weakness - replicability

  • Smith and Bond identified only 2 successful replications over almost 20 years
  • Other counties like Spain, Australia and Scotland were included
  • These countries aren't overly culturally different from America (original study) yet couldn't produce reliable results
  • Not appropriate to say there is high cross-cultural validity
  • We can't generalise findings even to other western cultures