Milgram's situational variables

• Wha is the acronym for situational variables?

  PUL. Proximity, uniform, location
• What was the effect of location on obedience in Milgram’s study?

  When the study was moved from Yale University to a less prestigious location (a run-down office building), obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%.
• How did the proximity affect it when researcher was over the phone?

  When the experimenter gave instructions by phone (no visual presence), obedience dropped to 20.5%, showing the importance of the physical presence of an authority figure.
• What is the percentage of participants who administered the full 450-volt shock in Milgram’s original study?

  65% of participants administered the full 450-volt shock.
• How did proximity affect obedience in Milgram’s study?

  When the learner was in the same room as the participant, obedience dropped to 40%. When participants had to physically force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate, obedience decreased further to 30%.
• What is the effect of uniform on obedience in Milgram’s study?

  When the experimenter wore a casual, lab coat was replaced by an ordinary person without a uniform, obedience decreased to 20%, showing the importance of authority symbols like uniforms.
• How does the presence of uniform in Milgram’s study influence authority?

  Uniforms provide visible symbols of authority, which increase obedience. When the authority figure’s uniform was removed, obedience rates significantly decreased.
• A strength of Milgram’s study is that it is supported by real-world evidence, such as Bickman’s (1974) field experiment on the power of uniform. In this study, Bickman had three experimenters dressed in different outfits: a security guard, a milkman, and a civilian. Participants were asked to follow various instructions, such as picking up a bag or giving money to the experimenter. The results showed that participants were more likely to obey the security guard (uniformed) than the milkman or civilian. Specifically, 80% of people obeyed the security guard compared to 40% when the person was dressed casually. This supports Milgram’s findings, showing that uniform, as a visible symbol of authority, increases obedience in both laboratory and real-life settings, reinforcing the idea that authority figures are more likely to be obeyed when wearing uniforms.
• What was the aim of Bickman’s (1974) field experiment?

  To investigate the effect of uniform on obedience by having experimenters dressed in different outfits (security guard, milkman, civilian).
• What did Bickman find about obedience in relation to uniform?

  Participants were more likely to obey the experimenter in a security guard uniform (80% obedience) than those in a milkman or civilian outfit (40% obedience).
• What percentage of people obeyed the security guard in Bickman’s study?

  80%
• What percentage of people obeyed the milkman or civilian in Bickman’s study?

  40%
• A strength of Milgram’s study is that it was highly controlled, which increases the reliability of the findings. The experiment took place in a laboratory setting, where variables such as the authority figure’s instructions, the shock levels, and the location were kept consistent across all participants. This allowed Milgram to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the presence of an authority figure and participants’ obedience. For example, every participant was given the same set of instructions and witnessed the same confederate acting as the learner, ensuring the results were not influenced by extraneous variables. The controlled environment also made it easier to replicate the study and test for consistency in obedience, further strengthening the validity of Milgram’s conclusions.
• What is a strength of Milgram’s study regarding its design?

  High internal validity
• A significant criticism of Milgram’s study comes from Orne and Holland (1968), who argued that the study lacked internal validity. They suggested that participants knew the shocks were not real, meaning that the results could not be generalized to real-world situations. Orne and Holland argued that the extreme stress participants experienced was likely caused by the artificiality of the situation and their awareness that they were part of an experiment. This undermines the claim that Milgram was measuring genuine obedience to authority, as participants may have been acting in response to demand characteristics, such as wanting to please the experimenter. As a result, Orne and Holland’s criticism highlights concerns about the internal validity of Milgram’s conclusions, suggesting that the findings may not reflect true obedience.
• A limitation of Milgram’s study is that it could be considered socially sensitive and potentially offensive to Holocaust survivors. The study, which involved participants administering what they believed to be harmful shocks to another person, might be seen as trivializing the extreme obedience observed during the Holocaust. By focusing on obedience to authority, Milgram’s study could be interpreted as oversimplifying the complex psychological, social, and historical factors that contributed to the atrocities of the Holocaust, such as indoctrination, dehumanization, and widespread societal acceptance of violence. For Holocaust survivors, this could be seen as an insensitive approach that fails to fully address the broader context of such events, making the study socially sensitive in a way that could be seen as disrespectful to their experiences.
• A limitation of Milgram’s study is that it focuses too heavily on situational factors, overlooking dispositional explanations for obedience. Milgram concluded that obedience was primarily driven by the presence of an authority figure and the structure of the experiment. However, this neglects individual differences that could influence how people behave in such situations. For example, some participants may have had a personality or set of beliefs that made them more likely to obey or resist authority, regardless of the situation. The authoritarian personality theory, proposed by Adorno et al., suggests that individuals with certain personality traits may be more inclined to obey authority figures. By not accounting for these dispositional factors, Milgram's study provides an incomplete explanation of obedience, suggesting that situational factors alone cannot fully explain why people obey authority.
• What is a limitation of Milgram’s study in terms of explanations for obedience?

  Milgram’s study focuses too much on situational factors and overlooks dispositional explanations.
• What did Milgram conclude about the causes of obedience in his study?

  Milgram concluded that obedience was primarily driven by the presence of an authority figure and the structure of the experiment.
• What theory is an example of a dispositional explanation for obedience?

  The authoritarian personality theory, proposed by Adorno et al., suggests that individuals with certain personality traits may be more likely to obey authority.