Obedience - Situational Variables

• Proximity


  baseline study - 65%

  teacher and learner in same room - 40%

  teacher forces learner's hand onto plate - 30%

  experimenter gave order on phone - 20.5%
• Location


  location change to a run-down office - 47.5%
• Uniform


  when experimenter in every day clothes, obedience drops to 20%
• Strength - support for proximity

  Milgram found when teacher and learner were in same room, obedience dropped to 40%

  when experimenter gave order by phone, obedience dropped to 20.5%

  suggests having to directly face the consequences of actions or not being directly faced with authority figure has an effect on reducing obedience
• Strength - support for location + uniform

  Bickman found 92% of pedestrians obeyed an order to give a stranger money for parking meter when person giving order was dressed as a security guard, compared to 49% when in ordinary clothes

  supports idea that uniform increases obedience

  Milgram found when he moved experiment from Yale Uni to a downtown office, rates of obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%

  supports idea location influences obedience
• Weakness - research is limited


  Kilman and Mann replicated Milgram's study in Australia

  only found 16% of ppts shocked learner at 450V

  Mantell showed this was 85% in Germany

  cross-cultural comparison shows in different societies, children may be socialised differently
• Weakness - lack of internal validity


  Orne and Holland's criticism of Milgram's study was many of ppts worked out procedure was faked

  more likely that ppts in Milgram's variations realised this due to extra manipulation

  even Milgram recognised when member of public replaced experimenter, some ppts may have worked out truth.

  Weakness - unclear whether results are genuinely due to operation of obedience of ppts saw through deception