5. milgram - situational variables Flashcards
- 1 . PROXIMITY
In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him.
In the proximity variation, Teacher and Learner were in the same room. The obedience rate dropped from the original 65% to
40%.
1 .2. TOUCH PROXIMITY VARIATION
the Teacher had to force the Learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate if he refused to place it there himself after giving a wrong answer. Obedience dropped further to
30%
1 . 3 REMOTE INSTRUCTION VARIATION
the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone.
Obedience reduced to
20.5%
The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks.
PROXIMITY EXPLANAION
Decreased proximity allows people to
psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions - when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated (as in the baseline study), the Teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person, so they were more obedient.
2 . LOCATION
Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale University setting of the baseline study. In this location, obedience fell to
47.5%.
UNIFORM 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 (i.e. it is granted by society)
Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.
AO3 - strength of MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS
research support for uniform - Bickman
One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience.
In a field experiment in New York City, Bickman had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit, and a security guard’s uniform. 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. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie.
This supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
AO3 - strength of MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS
Cross-cultural replications supporting proximity - Meeus
Another strength of Milgram’s research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures.
For instance, Meeus used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 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 dramatically.
This suggests that Milgram’s findings about proximity affecting obedience are not just limited to Americans or men but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.
AO3 - limitaton of MILGRAM’S SITUATIONAL VARIATIONS
low internal validity for member of public - Orne & Holland (+ Milgram)
One limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked.
Orne and Holland made this criticism of Milgram’s baseline study. They point out that 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 this situation was so contrived 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’ (i.e. responded to demand characteristics).
