Milgram's variations

Question 1

Ouline experiment 7 (proximity)

Answer 1

• After giving the first instructions, the experimenter left the room and communicates with the participant through a phone.
• Participants communicate the punishment with the experimenter on the phone
• 22.5% level of obedience
• reason behind the different level of obedience = The authority figure was not physically present. Which made it easier for the participants to not obey.
  This also explains why some participants gave a lower shock than they were supposed to give. Even though they were technically “obeying”

Question 2

Outline experiment 10 (legitimacy)

Answer 2

• Except instead of being set in Yale University, it was set up in a commercial rundown office, in Bridgeport. Run by an unknown organisation “research associates of bridgeport”.
  -Took place in a 3-room office suite, which was sparsely furnished
• 48% level of obedience
• reason behind the different level of obedience = The obedience decreased as compared to the experiment set up at Yale University. Because the organisation running the experiment is less prestigious and well known, the legitimacy of the situation decreased

Question 3

Outline experiment 13 (ordinary man)

Answer 3

• There was one learner, one recorder and one participant, acting as the “teacher”. The learner and recorders were both confederates
• The researcher in a lab coat had left the room and indicates that the experiment should continue without him
• The recorder tells the participant that they should increase the shock level every time the learner gets a wrong answer
• 20% level of obedience
• reason behind the different level of obedience = The authority figure in this case seemed less legitimate. In the baseline study the authority figure is someone in a lab coat.
  In this case, it was just an ordinary man. Which can explain why less people obeyed his suggestions

Question 4

Evaluate a strength of experiment 7

Answer 4

Replicated Results

I - A strength of this study is that the results have been replicated. Other studies also found a link between low proximity decreasing obedience. Demonstrating that it is reliable
J - Sedikikes and Jackson (1990) found in the NY Bronx zoo, the further away the authority figure is, the less like-like guests were to obey their instructions to not lean against a railing.
E - Suggesting that Milgram’s findings on proximity’s effect on obedience also applies to and replicated realistic situations.

Question 5

Evaluate a weakness of experiment 7

Answer 5

Mundane Realism

I - One issue with the study is that the tasks were highly artificial therefore the study has low mundane realism
J - The task of being told to shock another person through the telephone is unlike everyday examples of distanced obedience. Such as obeying a text from a parent to do a chore
E- Therefore, the findings of proximity’s effect on obedience demonstrated in these shocking tasks might not be applicable to the obedience or defiance of more mundane tasks.

Question 6

Evaluate a strength of experiment 10

Answer 6

Replicated results/ controlled experiment

I - As strength of this experiment is it’s high degree of controls
J - All the conditions and events in the study were kept the same as the original study: prods given, recorded voice lines from the learner, shock machine. The only difference was the less legitimate environment in Bridgeport
E - Establishing a cause-effect relationship between the lessened obedience and the less legitimate environment

Question 7

Evaluate a weakness of experiments 10

Answer 7

Mundane realism

I - One issue with the study was that the tasks were highly artificial
J - The tasks of shocking someone in a rundown office block is very unlikely in everyday examples of how environment effects obedience, such as obeying an authority figure at school or work rather then when you’re at home
E - Therefore, the findings of a less legitimate environment on obedience demonstrated in these shocking tasks might not be applicable to the obedience of defiance of more mundane tasks

Question 8

Evaluate a strength of experiment 13

Answer 8

Replicated Results

I - Other studies also found a link between a lesser authority figure decreasing obedience
J - Sedikikes and Jackson (1990) found in the NY Bronx zoo, when comparing a zookeeper in uniform against a person wearing a normal t-shirt, participants were more likely to comply with the zookeeper’s orders to not lean against a railing.
E - Suggesting that Milgram’s findings on the legitimacy of an authority figure on obedience also applies to realistic situations

Question 9

Evaluate a weakness of experiment 13

Answer 9

Mundane realism

I - One issue with the study was that the tasks were highly artificial
J - The tasks of an ordinary person asking to deliver a shock to someone else is very unlikely in everyday examples of how people effect obedience, such as when someone other then your parents forbid you to do something
E - Therefore, the findings of an ordinary person giving instructions on obedience demonstrates that these shocking tasks might no tbe applicable to the obedience or defiance of everyday tasks