situational variables

• situational variables

  -proximity

  -location

  -uniform
• proximity

  = teacher and leaner now in the same room.

  • obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
  • touch proximity variation= teacher had to force leaners hand onto an electroshock plate. obedience dropped to 30%
  • remote instruction variation= experimenter left room, gave instructions to teacher via telephone. obedience dropped to 20.5% some pretended to give shocks.
• proximity explanation

  = decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
• location

  = Conducted a variation in a run down office block rather than university

  • obedience fell to 47.5%
• location explanation

  = university gave the study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy.

  • obedience still quite high in office block because participants perceived the 'scientific' nature of the procedure.
• uniform

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

  • experimenter called away at start of study- role was taken over by an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes.
  • obedience dropped to 20%.
• Uniform’s explanation

  = uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate

  someone without uniform has less right to expect our obedience
• Evaluation- research support

  = a field experiment by Bickman, had 3 confederates dress in different outfits- jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit, security guards uniform.

  • asked passers by in the street to perform tasks like picking up litter, handing over a dropped coin.
  • people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the others.
  • support view that a variable like uniform had an effect on obedience
• Evaluation- cross cultural replications

  Strength= replicated In other cultures.

  • procedure to study obedience in Dutch participants. they were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job.
  • 90% obeyed
  • also replicated study in concerning proximity- when person giving orders wasn‘t present, obedience decreased.
  • suggests Milgram’s findings aren’t just limited to Americans but are valid across cultures
• Evaluation- counterpoint

  -however replications aren’t very cross cultural

  • smith and bond identified 2 replications that took place in non-western countries
  • other countries like Spain, Australia, Scotland aren’t that culturally different from the USA. They have similar notions about the role of authority
• Evaluation- low internal validity

  Limitation= participants may be aware the study was faked.

  • Orne and Holland pointed out that it’s even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables eg: experimenter is replaced by a member of the public the situation is so contrived that some participants may have worked out the truth. - so unclear whether findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because participants saw through deception and just acted.