Explanations For Obedience - Variations Of Milgram (1963) Flashcards
Agentic state
What did Milgram argue about?
That people operate in one of two ways when faced with social situations:
Either autonomously or enter an Agentic state
Agentic state
What is an Agentic shift?
When a person changes from an autonomous state to an Agentic state
What happens to the levels of obedience when an individuals enters the Agentic state and why does this affect obedience.
Increases the level of obedience.
This is because:
The level of personal responsibility decreases
Proximity (Variation)
Milgram conducted a variation where the learner and teacher were seated in the same room.
What did the percentage of obedience (of administering 450V) drop to and why?
The administration of 450V dropped from 65% to 40%
This was because the teacher was able to experience the learners pain directly
Proximity (Variation)
Milgram conducted another variation where the learner and teacher were seated in the same room but this time the teacher had to force the learners hand directly onto the shock plate
What happened to the percentage of obedience?
It dropped to a further 30%
What does proximity demonstrate within Milgram’s study?
The closer the proximity of the teacher and the learner, the lower the level of obedience
Location (Variation)
Milgram conducted a variation in a run down building instead of Yale university in order to test the power of “Location”
What happened to the level of obedience?
Did it increase or decrease?
Provide a percentage to support your answer
Decreased
Percentage of participants administering 450V went from 65% to 47.5%
This emphasises that less credible locations results in the reduction in the levels of obedience
Uniform (Variation)
Milgram examined the power of uniform in his variation.
The experimenter wore a lab coat indicating his status.
The experimenter was called away and replaced by an ordinary clothed confederate
What happened to the level of obedience?
Dropped from 65% to 20% empathising the dramatic power of uniform
Uniform (Variation)
Bickman (1974)
Investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment in NYC.
Used three make actors in different uniforms
1) Dressed as a Milkman
2) Dressed as a Security Guard
3) Dressed in ordinary clothes
Actors asked the public to either:
Give some money for the parking metre
Pick up a bag
Stand on the other side of the bus top which said “no standing”
Who did the public obey more and what does uniform indicate?
The guard was obeyed 76% of occasions
Milkman 47%
Ordinary clothes 30%
Uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power
Legitimate authority
For a person to obey an instruction, they need to believe that the authority is legitimate and this can be affected by multiple variables
For example:
Location
Uniform
Milgram’s Variations Quiz
Someone else administered the shock
Agentic state
92.5%
Milgram’s variation Quiz
Milgram’s Original Study
No variation
65%
Milgram’s Variation Quiz
The experiment took place in a run down building
Location & Legitimate Authority
48%
Milgram’s Variation Quiz
The teacher and learner were in the same room
Proximity (Leaner)
40%
Milgram’s Variation Quiz
The teacher had to force the learners hand onto a shock plate
Proximity (Learner)
30%
Milgram’s Variation Quiz
The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone
Proximity (Authority figure)
21%
Milgram’s Variation Quiz
The experimenter was replaced by another ‘participant’ in ordinary clothes
Uniform & Legitimate Authority
20%
Milgram study evaluation limitation
Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity.
Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather than administering electric shocks.
As a result we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions in the same way.
Milgram’s study evaluation limitation
Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for breaking numerous ethical guidelines, including: deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm.
Milgram deceived his participants as he said the experiment was on ‘punishment and learning’, when in fact he was measuring obedience, and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks. In addition, it was very difficult for participants with withdraw from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the participants to continue. Finally, many of the participants reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not protect from psychological harm.
