Situational variables

• What was the method of Milgram’s proximity replication?

  The learner was placed in the same room or the teacher was told to move the learner’s hand onto the shock plate
• What were the findings of Milgram’s proximity replication study?

  Obedience dropped to 40% when in the same room as the learner

  Obedience dropped to 30% when the teacher had to put the learners hand onto the shock plate
• What was the method of Milgram’s location replication study?

  At an office block in a run-down area
• What were the findings of Milgram’s location replication study?

  Resulted in a drop of obedience to 47.6% due to a lack of legitimacy of authority
• What was the method of Milgram’s uniform replication study?

  The professor was replaced with an instructor in regular clothes
• What were the findings of Milgram’s uniform replication study?

  Obedience dropped to 20% due to A lack of legitimacy of authority
• What are negative evaluations of Milgram’s variations?

  Lacked mundane realism

  • Artificial task
  • Little relevance to real-world obedience

  Demand characteristics

  • Participants may have realised that the confederate wasn’t being shocked and was playing along
• How was proximity varied?

  Closeness of teacher and learner
• what were the different situational variables?

  Proximity, location and uniform
• How was location varied?

  Prestige of setting
• In the baseline study the teacher could hear the teacher but couldn’t see him
• In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
• In the touch proximity variation, the teacher forced the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate fell to 30%
• In the remote-instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience rate was 20.5% and participants often pretended to give shocks
• Explanation of proximity variation

  Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
• In the location variation the study was conducted in a run down building rather than at the prestigious Yale university.

  Obedience dropped to 47.5%
• In the uniform variation the experimenter wearing a grey lab coat wascalled away and his role was taken over by an ordinary member of public in everyday clothes.

  Obedience fell to 20%

  • the lowest of these variations
• Explanation of location variation

  Obedience was higher in the university becuase the setting was legitimate and had authority so obedience was expected
• Explanation of the uniform variation

  A uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• Research support- A03

  Bickman (1974)

  • dressed confederates in different outfits including: business man attire, milkman outfit or a security guard
  • they issued demands like to pick up rubbish to people on the streets of new york
  • people were twice as likely to obey the security guard than the one dressed as a business man

  This shows that a situational variable like uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience
• Cross-cultural replication- A03

  Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986)

  • ordered Dutch participants to say stressful counts to interviewees
  • 90% obedience which fell when proximity decreased so the person giving orders wasn’t present

  shows that Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to American men but are valid across cultures
• Westernised idea- A03


  Smith and Bond (1998)

  • note that most replications took place in societies culturally similar to the US like Spain and Australia

  So we can’t conclude that Milgram’s findings about proxiity, location and uniform apply to people in all cultures
• Low internal validity- A03


  Orne and Holland (1968)

  • suggested the variations compared to the baseline study were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation

  In the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public even Milgram’s recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked out it wasn’t real.

  So it’s unclear whether the results are due to obedience or becuase the participants saw the deception and play acted

  • influenced by demand characteristics
• Danger of a situational perspective- A03

  Milgram’s conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience.

  Mandel (1998)

  • argues this offers an excuse for genocide

  situational explanations hugely oversimplify the causes of the holocaust and are offensive o survivors

  This permits others to excuse destructive behaviour by saying they were just obeying orders