Situational variables

• proximity- how close you are to your victim or your authority figure can influence your obedience levels.
• Location- conveys a legitimate authority, Milgram conducted it at Yale, when moved to a run down office conformity dropped to 48%
• Evaluation of situational variables- there is support from Milgram's variations as seen on slide 18, which, however can be criticised on methodology,
• Evaluation of situational variables- in all variations of Milgrams study at least one person obeyed. For these people, the situation did not influence their obedience and therefore their disposition may be more of an influence.
• Situational variables alone cannot explain the mass killings of jews as most took place in close proximity to the victim and without the presence of the authority figure.
• How does physical proximity to the learner affect obedience in participants?

  Obedience declines when participants are closer to the learner
• What was the obedience rate when participants and learners were in the same room?

  40%
• What was the obedience rate when participants had to hold the learner's arm onto a shock plate?

  30%
• How does the obedience rate of 30% compare to the original experiment's rate?

  It is significantly lower than 65%
• What effect does the proximity of the authority figure have on obedience?

  Closer authority figures increase obedience
• What was the obedience rate when instructions were given via telephone?

  21%
• How does the obedience rate of 21% via telephone compare to the original rate?

  It is much lower than 65%
• What are the key findings regarding obedience in relation to proximity in Milgram's experiments?

  • Obedience declines with physical closeness to the learner
  • Obedience rate drops to 40% in the same room
  • Holding the learner's arm results in 30% obedience
  • Obedience falls to 21% when instructions are given via telephone
• Milgram found that proximity affected levels of obedience. When the teacher and learner were in the same room, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450-volt shock fell from 65% to 40%.
• Milgram also carried out the study in different settings and found that obedience increases in institutional and official-seeming environments. For example, Milgram’s original experiment (65% obedience) was conducted at the prestigious Yale University. But when Milgram replicated the experiment in an office in a bad part of town, obedience dropped to 47.5%.
• follow up on original study- teacher and learner in same room- obedience decreased
• physical force- teacher had to force learner's hand onto the plate to receive electric shock
• reduced proximity- experimenter left the room and gave instructions to teacher by telephone- obedience dropped
• experimenter in a lab coat was taken away to answer a phone call and the role of the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public (played by a confederate)'- obedience dropped