Situational variables affecting obedience

Question 1

Proximity

Answer 1

Obedience was reduced when the teacher was closer to the learner. (face to face or force hand onto shock plate).
Also, obedience reduced when the experimenter gave instructions over the phone.

Question 2

Evaluation strength: high internal validity

Answer 2

Milgram systematically changed one thing such as proximity of the experimenter whilst keeping everything else the same.

Question 3

Evaluation weakness: socially sensitive

Answer 3

offers an obedience alibi by providing Nazis with an excuse.

Question 4

Uniform

Answer 4

When the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, obedience decreased to 20%.

Question 5

Evaluation strength: support from Bickman (1974)

Answer 5

Found that passers-by were more likely to obey an order to perform a trivial request to pick up a letter from a confederate dressed as a security guard as opposed to a milkman or civilian.

Question 6

Evaluation weakness: low internal validity

Answer 6

Participants could see that the study was fake when the experimenter was replaced with a member of the public.

Question 7

Location

Answer 7

When Milgram’s study was moved to a seedy rundown office, the obedience rate decreased from 65% to 47.5%.

Question 8

Evaluation strength: replication by Miranda et al

Answer 8

found a 90% obedience rate in Spain. Can be generalised to other cultures.