SI- Situational Variables affecting Obedience

Question 1

Which factors did Milgram investigate in his variations?

Answer 1

1) Proximity
2) Location
3) Uniform

Question 2

Describe what happened in the proximity variation.

Answer 2

Both teacher and learner were seated in the same room, obedience levels fell to 40%, as the teacher was now able to experience Mr. Wallace’s anguish directly.

• In the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to actually force the learner’s arm down onto a metal plate to administer the shocks, obedience rate was 30%
• In the absent experimenter variation the experimenter left the room after giving his instructions and gave subsequent orders by telephone, vast majority of participants missed out shocks or gave lower voltages than they were meant to, obedience rate was 21%

Question 3

Describe what happened in the location variation.

Answer 3

Original experiment was conducted at Yale, a prestigious university in America. The high status of the university gave the study credibility and respect in the eyes of the participants, thus making them more likely to obey.

In the variation study, Milgram moved his experiment to a set of run down offices and obedience dropped to 48%. Participants did report the location of Yale University gave them confidence in the integrity of the people involved, and indicated that they would not have shocked Mr. Wallace if the study had been conducted elsewhere, this suggests that status of location effects obedience.

Question 4

Describe what happened in the uniform variation.

Answer 4

• In the alternative setting the experimenter did not wear his uniform(laboratory coat).
• Uniforms have a powerful impact on obedience, rate fell to 20%.
• Uniforms are easily recognisable symbols of power and status.
• Sometimes uniforms shows that someone has power and status (e.g. a police officer’s uniform) however, on other occasions they show that someone does not have power and status (e.g. a prisoner’s uniform)

Question 5

Evaluate Milgram’s variations. (ADVANTAGES)

Answer 5

1) Cross cultural replications
- Milgram’s research and his variations have been replicated in other cultures as well.
- For example, Miranda et al (1981) found high obedience rates in Spanish students (90%).
- This suggests that Milgram’s conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males but apply to females and other cultures too (Milgram did repeat his study on American females and found the same level of obedience as his males participants)

2) Control of variables in Milgram’s variations
- A strength of Milgram’s variations especially for proximity and location were highly controlled as he only altered that one variable but kept the rest of the variables constant to see what effect this would have on obedience.
- In fact he replicated his variations on 1000 participants in total – this suggests that Milgram’s research is not only valid (measuring the IV) but also replicable (it can be repeated) meaning that stronger conclusions can be drawn about situation variables and obedience.

3) Bickman carried out a field experiment in New York in which he asked passers-by to complete tasks such as picking up rubbish. In one condition, when the experimenter was dressed as a security guard, 39% of participants obeyed the request to pick up the litter. In another condition, the experimenter wore normal clothes and 14% obeyed the request
This supports the role of uniform as it shows how important uniform can be in increasing obedience rates
This increases the validity of uniform as a factor that affects obedience

Question 6

Evaluate Milgram’s variations. (DISADVANTAGES)

Answer 6

1) Lack of internal validity
- Orne and Holland criticised Milgam’s original study on the grounds that the participants had worked out that the whole procedure was a ‘set-up’ and thus fake and the participants may have realised this through the four prompts used.
- In fact, in the variations of Milgram’s research when the experimenter is replaced by ‘a member of the public’ obedience rates went down to 20% - even Milgram recognised the situation as so contrived (forceful thus fake) that some of the participants may have worked out the truth (hence why 35% did not shock to the full 450 volts).
- This is a criticism since we do not know if real obedience to authority occurred or if it was just simply demand characteristics – i.e. the participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly!