Social Influence - Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Question 1

Who investigated situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 1

Milgram (1963)

Question 2

Outline Milgram’s method in his 1963 study of obedience.

Answer 2

• Multiple lab experiments at Yale University.
• Tested whether people would obey orders to shock someone in a separate room.
• 40 men participated, responding to newspaper ads seeking volunteers for a ‘learning and memory’ study.
• Experimenter wore a grey technician’s coat.
• Each participant was introduced to a confederate. They drew lots to see who would act as ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’, but this was fixed so the participant was always teacher.
• Participant witnessed the confederate being strapped into a chair and connected up to a shock generator in the next room — it didn’t actually give shocks, but the participants thought it was real.
• The switches ranged from 15 volts (labelled ‘slight shock’) to 450 volts (labelled ‘XXX’).
• The participant taught the learner word-pairs over intercom. When the learner answered incorrectly, the participant had to administer an increasing level of shock.
• After the 300V shock, the learner pounded on the wall and made no further responses.
• If participants hesitated during the process, the experimenter told them to continue.
• Debriefing include an interview, questionnaires and being reunited with the ‘learner’.

Question 3

What were the results of Milgram’s 1963 study?

Answer 3

65% of participants administered 450 V and none stopped before administering 300V (when the learner banged on the wall).

Most participants showed obvious signs of stress like sweating, groaning and trembling.

Question 4

What was the conclusion of Milgram’s study?

Answer 4

Ordinary people will obey orders and hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience.

Question 5

Simply state (without explaining) some situational factors of obedience as identified by Milgram?

Answer 5

• Proximity of the victim
• Proximity of the authority
• Legitimacy of the authority
  (Including uniform and location of the experiment)
• Presence of allies

Question 6

Milgram (1963):

What happened when there were changes to the proximity of the victim?

Answer 6

Obedience dropped from 65% to 40% with the learner in the same room, and 30% when the participant had to put the learner’s hand onto the shock plate.

Proximity made the learner’s suggesting harder to ignore.

Question 7

Milgram (1963):

What happened when there were changes to the proximity of the authority?

Answer 7

When the authority figure gave prompts by phone from another room, obedience rates dropped to 23%.

When the authority figure wasn’t close by, orders were easier to resist.

Question 8

Milgram (1963):

What happened when the location of the experiment changed?

Answer 8

When participants we’re told the study was being run by a private company, and the experiment was moved to a set of run-down offices in a nearby town, the proportion of people giving the maximum shock fell to 48%.

When his association with a prestigious university (Yale) was removed, the authority of the experimenter seemed less legitimate, so the participants were more likely to question it.