Obedience: Situational variables Milgram

Question 1

In Milgram’s follow-up study of situational variables, how was proximity changed? How did this impact the behaviour of participants in comparison to the baseline procedure and how can this be explained?

Answer 1

In the proximity variation the teacher and the learner were in the same room together. Obedience level dropped from 65% to 40% (by 25%). In the touch proximity variation the teacher had to place the learner’s hand on an electric plate. Obedience dropped further to 30%. This occurred because the participants were not able to distance themselves psychologically from the consequences of their actions.

Question 2

In Milgram’s follow-up study of situational variables, how was location changed? How did this impact the behaviour of participants in comparison to the baseline procedure and how can this be explained?

Answer 2

Experiment conducted in a run-down office block. Obedience fell to 47.5%. Prestige of Yale university removed, taking away some of the legitimacy of authority. However the highest of the obedience levels for the situational variables because the participants still perceived the procedure to be scientific.

Question 3

In Milgram’s follow-up study of situational variables, how was uniform changed? How did this impact the behaviour of participants in comparison to the baseline procedure and how can this be explained?

Answer 3

‘Member of public’ confederate carried out the directions in casual clothing. Obedience level dropped to 20% (the lowest). This was due to the removal of a symbol of legitimacy of authority.

Question 4

What are the strengths of Milgram’s research into the effects of situational variables on obedience?

Answer 4

+ Research support: Leonard Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different wear: security guard, milkman and casual wear. They ordered passer-bys to pick up litter and found that the public obeyed to the security guard the most, the milkman and then the confederate dressed casually. Supports the view that a situational variable such as uniform outlined in Milgram’s study impacts obedience.
+ His research has been replicated across cultures. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used realistic procedure on Dutch participants. Participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. Also when person giving orders not present obedience decreased Suggests Milgrams findings about obedience about not just limited to Americans or males.
+ Milgram controlled his variables closely, only altering one thing at a time in his variations, increasing the validity of his findings.

Question 5

What are the weaknesses of Milgram’s research into the effects of situational variables on obedience?

Answer 5

• Counterpoint: Milgram and Bickman’s research may lack temporal validity. Social norms of the time may have leaned towards respecting authority more than our current views on obedience. Means they may not explain obedience in our time.
• Counterpoint: Smith and Bond (1998) found only two replications that took part in non-western countries (India and Jordan), whereas others were mostly western such as Spain or Australia. Suggests it may not be appropriate to conclude Milgram’s findings can be generalized to other cultures.
• Counterpoint: could be agued that participants may have worked out that the procedure was faked. This was perhaps most likely in the uniform variation, which was very contrived. Therefore, obedience was not truly being measured.