Obedience-situational variables

• What variations did Milgram carry out to consider what situational variables might lead to more or less obedience?

  Proximity, Location and Uniform.
• What are situational variables?


  Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour.
• Describe how Milgram tested proximity? What were the findings and the explanations for these findings?

  In Milgrams baseline study the Teacher could hear Learner but couldn't see him, as he was giving the shocks. In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and obedience levels dropped to 40% from its original 65%. This suggests that it is easier to obey with decreased proximity as it allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
• Describe how Milgram tested location? What were the findings and the explainations for these findings?

  To test location, Milgram conducted a variation in a run down office block instead of the prestigious Yale University of the baseline study. In this location, obedience levels dropped to 47.5%. This tells us people are more likely to obey if they feel like something is legitimate and has authority- the prestigious Yale university gave Milgrams study the legitimacy and authority and they were more obedient in the original study because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and obedience was expected.
• Describe how Milgram tested uniform? What were the findings and the explanations for these findings?

  To test uniform, instead of having the experimenter wear a grey lab coat (a type of uniform and a symbol of his authority), like in the original study, the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' (one of Milgram's confederates) in every day clothes. The obedience rate dropped to 20%- the lowest of the variations. This tells us that people are more likely to obey when someone is wearing a uniform because they see their authority as legitimate (ie it is granted by society). Uniforms encourage our obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority; someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.
• AO3- strength, research support. What other study has demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience, describe this study?

  Bickman conducted a field experiment in New York City and had three confederates dress in different outfits and made them individually stand in the street while asking passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter. It was found that people were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie. This supports the view that a situational variable, like uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
• AO3: limitation, low internal validity. Who made the criticism that participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked?

  Orne and Holland made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study and point out that it is even more likely in his variations due to the extra manipulation of variables. A good example being when the Experimenter is replaced by 'an ordinary member of the public.' Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth. Because of this, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and 'play acted' (responded to demand characteristics). This reduces the internal validity of Milgram's findings.
• AO3: limitation, the danger of a situation perspective. Who criticised situational explanations for obedience (what Milgram's findings support)?

  David Mandel. He argues that this perspective offers an excuse or 'alibi' for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest that the Nazi's were simply obeying orders. Milgrams explanation ignores the role of dispositional factors, like personality, implying the Nazi's were victims of situational factors beyond their control.