Milgram's study & Situational Variables

• Obedience

  A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.

  
  

  The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has power to punish when obedient behaviour isn't forthcoming
• Milgram Baseline Obedience Study: Aim

  to assess obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter) ordered participants (teacher) to give increasingly strong shocks to learners located in a different room. .
• Milgram Baseline Obedience Study: Procedure

  • 40 American men volunteered to take part in a study about memory​
  • Each participant was introduced to another participant who was a confederate ​
  • They drew lots to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner​
  • The lot was rigged, and the participant was always the teacher ​
  • An experimenter (another confederate) was always involved wearing a grey lab coat
• Milgram Baseline Obedience Study: Findings

  • Every participant delivered shocks up to 300v​
  • 12.5% stopped at 300v (5participants)​
  • 65% delivered highest shock 450v (fully obedient)​
  • Qualitative date showed participants were uncomfortable: sweating, nail biting, groan etc
• Milgram Baseline Obedience Study: Conclusion

  • German people are not ‘different’ to American participants in his study willing to obey orders even when they might harm another person. ​
  • He suspected certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so decided to conduct further studies to investigate these. 
• Strengths of Milgram's Baseline Study

  • Validity: The control of variables through set prods, a unified setting, and procedure means that it’s more likely that the results of Milgram’s experiment produced internally valid results.
  • Reliability: Milgram was able to reproduce a similar result with forty different participants. After his first experiment, he also went on to test many different variables that could influence obedience.
• Weaknesses of Milgram's Baseline Study


  • Deception: said the experiment was on ‘punishment and learning’, and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks.
  • Right to Withdraw: Difficult for participants with withdraw from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the participants to continue.
  • Protection From Harm: reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while taking part in the experiment.
  • Lacks ecological validity: tested obedience in a lab, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions
• Weakness- External Validity

  Orne and Holland (1968) thought that the participants might have guessed that they were not really harming anyone. This casts doubt on whether the same behaviour would be seen in real life – lack in ecological validity.​

  ​
• Situational Variables

  • Milgram identified several factors he believed influenced the level of obedience shown by his participants. : Proximity, Location and Uniform
  • They are all related to the external circumstances rather than personalities of the people involved. ​
• Proximity


  • In the original study the teacher and learner were in adjoining rooms but could not see each other ​
  • In the variation the teacher and learner were in the same room ​​
  • Obedience levels dropped from the baseline of  65% to 40% ​
• Proximity (2)


  • The teacher had to force the learners hand onto the “electro-shock plate” when he refused to answer a question. Obedience dropped to 30% ​
  • ​
  • Last proximity condition the experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone. Obedience dropped to 20%.
• Location


  • He conducted the study in a run down building rather than at a University​
  • In this situation the experimenter had less authority​
  • Obedience fell to 47.5% 
• Uniform


  • In the original study the experimenter wore a lab coat​
  • In this variation the experimenter gets called away before the experiment starts ​
  • A member of the public (played by a confederate) took over as the role of the experimenter in everyday clothes ​
  • The obedience dropped down to 20% 
• • Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. ​
  • We accept people in uniforms are entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate.​
• Social Support Condition


  • two confederates set an example of defiance by refusing to continue the shocks, especially early on at 150 volts, it permitted the real participant also to resist authority.​
  • defiance lowered obedience to only 10% compared to 65% ​
• Sheridan & King (1972) to support Milgram’s research.​


  • They tested obedience to authority with an authentic victim. ​
  • They instructed 26 undergraduates to deliver 30 graded shocks to a puppy, who was given real, but harmless, shocks. ​
  • They found that 54% of the males and 100% of the females obeyed throughout, even though some showed great emotional distress and some cried. ​
  • They replicated Milgram's experiment, but with a real victim instead of an actor.
• Strengths of Situational Variables Explanation

  • Field experiment Leonard Bickman (1974): people 2x likely to pick up litter when asked by security assistant than person dressed in jacket and tie. ​
  • Cross-cultural replications: study on Dutch participants showed 90% of participants obeyed when asked to say stressful things to someone interviewing for a job
• Weaknesses of Situational Variables Explanation

  • Low internal validity: participants aware that the study was fake. e.g. when experimenter is replaced by someone from the public.​
  • Dangers of situational perspectives: Critics argue that situational variables might imply that individuals excuse their evil behaviours. 
  • Perry (2012) participants had been sceptical about the research. Those who doubted were less obedient