MIlgram’s situational variables

• What situational variables were manipulated in Milgram’s study?

  • Proximity- Physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to and the distance between the teacher and learner.
  • Location- The place where the order was issued
  • Uniform- Positions of authority have a specific outfit which symbolises their authority.
• Proximity variation

  • Teacher and learner in the same room: 40% obedience
  • Touch proximity- 30% obedience, the teacher is not longer protected from seeing their consequences of their actions.
  • Experimenter gives orders by the phone- 20.5%, teacher cheated and missed out shocks or gave less voltage then ordered by the experimenter.
• Location variable

  • Milgram changed the location of the obedience study. He conducted the experiment in a rundown office, instead of Yale university
  • Obedience levels fell to 47.5%
  • The university gave Milgram’s research legitimacy and authority, whereas the run-down office is not a location where you expect an experimenter to belong and considered as less credible.
• Uniform variable

  • Original study: experimenter wore a lab coat
  • Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call as the beginning of the procedure.
  • The role of the experimenter was taken over by a ordinary member of the public who was wearing casual clothes.
  • Obedience level fell to 20%
  • As uniform encourages obedience as it is considered as a symbol of authority and someone who wears uniform is entitled to obedience in society.
• Low internal validity

  • Participants may be aware the procedure is fake.
  • Orne and Holland, made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline study. It is even more likely that participants in Milgram’s variations realised this because of the extra manipulation. A good example of this variation was when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public.
  • It is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly. Posing threat of demand characteristics.
• Research support

  • Bickman, conducted a field experiment, where there was 3 confederates dressed in different outfits- a suit, milkman’s outfit and security guards uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter.
  • The results found people were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the on dressed in a suit or milkman’s outfit.
  • Results from Bickman’s study were consistent with Milgram’s results regarding the uniform variable as it legitimises the authority figure.
• Cross-cultural replications

  • Findings have been replicated in other cultures.
  • Meeus and Raaijkmakers used a realistic procedure than Milgram’s study on Dutch participants. Participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed.
  • Researchers replicated the proximity variation and found obedience levels decreased. This is because the person giving the orders was not present.
  • Suggests Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just linked to American’s but are valid across cultures.
• The obedience alibi

  • Mandel argues that this perspective provides an excuse for destructive obedience.
  • Milgram’s research into situational variables is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust, to suggests that the Nazi’s were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control. This removes personal responsibility from the perpetrators and that anyone faced with a similar situation would have behaved the same way.
  • The relevance of obedience research has been challenged as an explanation of real-life atrocities.