Miligram

• Proximity variation

  Teacher and Learner were in the same room obedienc dropped from 65% to 40%.
• Touch proximity variation


  Teacher had to force the Learner's hand onto an electroshock plate

  obedience dropped to 30%
• Remote instruction variation


  Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone.

  obedience dropped to 20.5%

  faked shocks too
• Decreased proximity

  Allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
• Location variation

  Milgram conducted the study in a run-down office block

  obedience fell to 47.5%
• The prestigious university environment


  Gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority, so participants were more obedient
• Uniform variation


  Experimenter was called away and the role was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat

  obedience fell to 20%
• Uniforms


  Encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority
• Field experiment in New City

  1. Leonard Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits-jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guard's uniform

  2. The confederates 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

  3. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie
• Another strength of Milgram's research

  • His findings have been replicated in other cultures
  • Wim Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's to study obedience in Dutch
  • 90% of the participants obeyed
  • The researchers also replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased
  • shows findings relevant to all cultures not just american men
• Smith and Bond looked at two variation in Jordan and India which r very diff to US

  Therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings (including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures
• One limitation


  • Participants may have been aware the procedure was faked
  • Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study
  • It is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables
  • A good example is the variation where the Experimenter is replaced by a 'member of the public'
  • Even Milgram recognised that some participants may well have worked out the truth
• Therefore, in all of Milgram's studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just 'play-acted (ie responded to demand characteristics)