Obedience: Situational variables

• Who is the person associated with this research?

  milgram
• what were the three variables assessed?

  proximity, location and uniform.
• proximity

  in milgram's original study, the teacher and the learner were in the adjoining rooms. the teacher could hear the learner but not see him.

  in the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
• touch proximity variation

  in this variation, the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. the obedience rate dropped to 30%.
• remote-instruction variation

  in this variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. the obedience rate dropped again to 20.5%. the participant also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones when they were ordered to.
• location: procedure

  the location of the obedience study was a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (Yale university).
• location: findings

  obedience fell to 47.5%. this indicates that the experimenter has less authority in this setting.
• uniform: procedure

  in the original baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority.

  in one variation, the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call right at the start of the procedure. the role of the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat.
• uniform: findings

  the obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations.

  this suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol and a cue to behave in an obedient matter.
• limitation of milgram's variations: may lack internal validity

  orne and holland suggest participants in milgram's variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of the extra experimental manipulation. in the variation where the experimenter was replace by a 'member of the public', even milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out. so it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and 'play acted'.
• strength of milgram's variations: has been replicated in other cultures

  miranda et al. found over 90% obedience in Spanish students. milgram's findings are not limited to American males. however, smith and bond note that most replications have taken place in western societies which are culturally not that different from the USA. it is premature to conclude that milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to everyone everywhere.
• limitation of milligrams conclusions: provide an 'obedience alibi'

  milgram's findings are an 'excuse' for obedience- suggesting that it is the situation not the person that is responsible. Mandel claims this is offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that the nazis simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control. milgram's situational perspective is dangerous because it ignores the roles that discrimination, racism and prejudice played in the holocaust.
• strength: has control of variables

  milligram systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience. other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 participants. this control gives us more certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the variable manipulated (e.g. location), showing cause and effect relationships