situational variables affecting conformity + Milgram

Question 1

proximity

Answer 1

• in this variation of Milgram’s study, the teacher & learner are in the same room
• obedience dropped from the baseline 65% to 40%
• in an intense variation, the teacher forced the learners hand onto the electroshock plate, when they refused to answer > in this ‘touch proximity’ condition, obedience dropped to 30%
• in the 3rd proximity variation, the experimenter left the room & gave the teacher instructions via a telephone > in this ‘remote instruction’ condition, proximity was reduced and obedience dropped to 20.5% (they pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones)

Question 2

location

Answer 2

• in another kind of variation Milgram changed the location > a run-down building rather than Yale University (prestigious)
• in this situation, the experimenter had less authority so obedience dropped to 47.5%

Question 3

uniform

Answer 3

• in the original, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat (uniform = symbol of authority)
• Milgram made a variation where the experimenter was called away due to a telephone call right at start of the procedure & their role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate) in everyday clothing
• obedience dropped to 20% > lowest of the variations

Question 4

MILGRAMS STUDY

Answer 4

Procedure:
- 40 American males recruited through newspaper adverts/flyers in the post
- ad was looking for ppts. for a study about memory
- ppts. were between 20-50 years old, & jobs ranged from unskilled to professional
- they were offered $4.50 to partake
- upon arrival they were paid & there was a rigged draw for their roles > confederate always ended up as the ‘learner’ & true ppt. as the ‘teacher’
- ‘experimenter’ was also another confederate, dressed in a lab coat
- ppts. were told they could leave at any time

Question 5

procedure continued

Answer 5

• learner was strapped to a chair in another room & wired w/ electrons
• teacher was required to give learner an increasingly sever electric shock each time they made a mistake on a learning task (learning word pairs)
• the shocks were demonstrated to the teacher but they were not real
• shock levels started at 15 (labelled ‘slight shock’ on the machine) & rose 30 levels to 450 volts (‘danger - severe shock’)
• at 300 (‘intense’), learner pounded on the wall & gave no response to the next question > at 315 the same occurred but the learner gave no further responses
• teacher was told absence of response = wrong answer
• if the teacher was unsure, they epxerimenter used 1/4 prods:
  1) ‘please continue’ or ‘please go on’
  2) ‘the experimenter requires you to continue’
  3) ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
  4) ‘you have no other choice; you must go on’

Question 6

findings

Answer 6

• no ppt. stopped below 300 volts
• 65% continued to the full 450 volts compared to a predicted 3%
• ppts. showed extreme signs of distress
• during the debrief, ppts. were assured their behaviour was entirely normal
• Milgram sent a follow up questionnaire, where 85% reported they were glad to have participated