milgrams variations

• experiment 7 (iphone 7)

  aim: to see if proximity of experimenter affected obedience

  procedure: after giving first instructions, experimenter leaves the lab and communicates with participant via telephone
• experiment 7 - % of obedience

  22.5%
• experiment 7 - reasoning behind level of obedience

  authority was not physically present, so made it easier for participants not to obey - some participants gave lower shocks than supposed to give even thought they were 'technically' obeying
• experiment 10 (0/10)

  aim: too see whether legitimacy of environment would affect obedience

  procedure: instead of being in yale uni, experiment set up in a less prestigious run-down commercial building run by an unknown organisation 'research associates of bridgeport' 3-room office sparsely furnished
• experiment 10 - % of obedience

  48% vs 65% in yale
• experiment 10 - reasoning behind % level of obedience

  experiment took place in a less prestigious place which reduced legitimacy of the study so obedience levels decreased
• experiment 13 (13rw) - how its different to original study

  aim to see whether legitimacy of authority affected obedience

  procedure: 1 learner, 1 experimenter, 1 teacher and 1 participant (teacher). learner & experimenter were confederates. experimenter in lab coat leaves the room & indicates that experiment should continue. recorder tells participant that they should increase shock level every time learner gets wrong answer even though experimenter did not instruct this
• experiment 13 - % of obedience

  20%
• experiment 13 - reasoning behind % level of obedience

  authority figure seemed less legitimate - in baseline study, authority is in a lab coat - in this case it is an ordinary man
• experiment 7 - strength

  • replicated results of studies found a link between low proximity decreasing obedience
  • sedikikes and jackson (1990) found in the NY Bronx zoo, the further away an authority was (zookeeper uniform), the less likely guests were to obey instruction to not lean against railings
  • therefore suggests milgrams findings on proximity's effect on obedience are reliable
• experiment 7 - weakness

  • task highly artificial
  • task of being told to shock through telephone unlike everyday example of distanced obedience such as obeying a text from a parent to do a chore
  • therefore findings on proximity's effect on obedience might not be applicable to obedience of everyday tasks
• experiment 10 - strength

  • highly controlled
  • prods given, recorded voice lines from learner, shock machine was all the same - only difference was the less legitimate environment
  • establishes a cause effect relationship between lessened obedience and less legitimate environment compared to yale
• experiment 10 - weakness

  • highly artificial
  • shocking in a rundown office etc..unlike everyday examples of a less legitimate environment such as going to the shops
  • findings of legitimacy of environment may not be applicable
• experiment 13 - strength

  • replicated results of studies found a link between lesser authority figure decreasing obedience
  • sedikikes and jackson (1990) found in NY Bronx Zoo when comparing a zookeeper in uniform against a person wearing a normal tshirt, participants more likely to comply with zookeepers orders to not lean against railing
  • participants decrease in obedience was due to the lesser authority the ordinary man has showing cause-effect relationship between decreased authority and decreased obedience
• experiment 13 - weakness

  • highly artificial
  • unlike everyday examples of being randomly told what to do in a public environment such as being told to quiet down in a restaurant by a customer
  • milgrams findings on a lessened authority may not be applicable