Situational Variables

• Proximity variation of Milgram's experiment:

  • Teacher (giving the shocks) and Learner were in the same room- closer proximity. Obedience levels fell to 40% since the teacher was able to feel the learners pain more directly, causing them to feel responsible.
  • Teacher forced learners hand onto the shock plate- physically close. Obedience levels fell to 30%- teacher was directly responsible for the pain they caused, prompting them not to continue.
  • Authority figure left the room, instructions were given over the phone, obedience levels fell to 21%-pps did not feel as if they were an agent.
• Location variation of Milgram's experiment:

  • Original variation was in Yale University- prestigious
  • Variation was done in a run-down building, and was no longer connected to Yale.
  • Obedience fell to 47.5%, showing that when there is less credibility surrounding the task, obedience falls as there is less certainty that the task is real.
• Uniform variation of Milgram's experiment:

  • Experimenter (in lab coat) called away and replaced by another confederate in plain clothes. Confederate suggested to the pps that they should increase the voltage with every mistake.
  • Obedience levels fell to 20%, showing that uniform is a key part in forming a legitimate authority.
• Bickman (1974):

  • Field experiment, 3 actors (dressed as a milkman, security guard, in plain clothes) who asked members of the public one of three instructions- pick up a bag, give someone money for a parking metre, stand on the other side of a sign which states 'no standing'.
  • Security guard was obeyed 76% of the time, milkman 47%, plain clothed 30%. This suggests that people are more likely to obey those in a uniform which conveys a sense of legitimate authority.
• In Milgram’s original research at Yale University, the percentage of participants administering the full 450 volts was 65%. However, when the experiment took place in a run-down building in Connecticut, obedience levels fell to 48%. This change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority, so pps were less likely to trust the experiment. When the experimenter was replaced by a plain clothes, the obedience levels fell more to 20%. The lack of a uniform and questionable position of authority reduced the credibility of the authority, which meant pps were far less likely to obey.
• Evaluation of Milgram (1961):

  • Low ecological validity- lab experiment with artificial conditions, which lowers generalisability to other settings.
  • Low external validity- low mundane realism, not a realistic situation to study obedience.
  • Low population validity- biased sample of only males, results cannot be generalised to females.
  • Research has value into why people obey in situations which are condemned in the future (e.g. Nazi regime).
  • High internal validity- standardised procedure (lab experiment), which increases replicability and reliability.
• Ethical issues of Milgram (1961):

  • Deception- pps believed they were shocking a real person. However, post-interviews showed the effects of the deception, where 84% of pps were glad to take part.
  • Protection from harm- pps were exposed to stressful situations, even causing seizures in 3 pps.
  • BUT pps received a full debrief and a follow up to ensure they weren't harmed.
• Situational factors are environmental.