Milgrams situational variations

• Proximity

  When learner and teacher were in the same room obedience dropped to 40%

  when teacher had to force learners hand on shock pad it decreased to 3%

  when instructions were given by experimenter over the phone, it was 20.5% and some faked giving shocks

  Less proximity allows people to distance themself from consequence of actions
• Location

  The baseline study was carried out at Yale University and obedience was 65%

  when the study was carried out on a run down office obedience fell to 47.5%

  Yale University gave legitimacy of authority
• uniform

  When the experiment in a lab coat was replaced by an ordinary member of the public in normal clothes obedience fell to 20%

  Uniform encourages obedience as it’s recognised as a symbol of authority
• strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situation variables on obedience

  in a field experiment, psychologist had three confederates dress in different outfits

  The Confederate individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks, such as picking up litter, or handing over a coin for the parking meter.

  People were twice as likely to help the assistant dressed as the security guard, than the one dressed in jacket and tie.

  This suggests that situational variables such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience
• another strength is his findings have been replicated in other cultures

  Psychologists studied obedience in Dutch participants they will order to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate who was desperate for a job

  90% of participants obeyed, when person giving orders wasn’t present obedience decreased

  However, replications of Milgram’s research are not very cross cultural, only two studies between 1968 and 85 took place in countries culturally different to the US

  May not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings apply to people in all cultures
• A limitation is low internal validity

  participants may have been aware the procedures were fake.

  psychologists made this criticism of milgrams baseline study, and said it is even more likely in his variations because of extra manipulation of variables

  for example, when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public participants may have worked out the truth because it was unrealistic