milgrams situational varibales

Question 1

proximity

Answer 1

in orignal study, in adjoining rooms so tacher could hear learner but not see them
in proximity variation, they were in the SAME room
obedience rate dropped from the baseline 65% to 40%

drmatic variation, teaher had to force the learners hanad onto an electoshock plate when he requedd to answer the question
touch proxmity condiion, obedience rate fell further to 30%

the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to teacher by telephone, proxmity was reduced
further reduction to 20.5%

Question 2

what are the names of Milgrams 3 situational variables

Answer 2

proximity
location
uniform
study tip: PUL

Question 3

location

Answer 3

changed the location of the obedience study
study was conducted in a run down builder rather than presitgious yale uni where roignial study took place

experimenter had less authority
obedience fell to 47.5%
still high but not as high as orinial 65%

Question 4

uniform

Answer 4

oringially wore lab coat
now wore everyday clothes
obedience fell to 20% lowet of these variations

Question 5

strength of milgrams situational vairables

Answer 5

research support for proximity

milgram foudn that when teacher and leanrer were in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%
when experimenter left room and gave orders by teleophone, obedience dropped to 20%
stregnth as it suggest that having to directly face the consewunce or bot being direcely faced, has an effect on reducing obedience.

Question 6

weakness of milgrams sitautional varibales

Answer 6

lack of internal validity

orne and holland probelms with oriignal study is that many of the particpants worked out that the procedure was faked
more lieky to have noticed this in milgrams varibales as even more maniputaltion
milgram even noticed
weakness as hard to knwo if results are generally due to the opertion of obedience or because the partcipanst saw through deception and acted accordingly