Situational Variables Affecting Obedience

Question 1

Outline Proximity

Answer 1

In Milgram’s original experiment the teacher couldn’t see the learner, obedience was 65%. When the teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience fell to 40%. This is because the teacher cauld see directly how their behaviour was affecting the learner. Also, when the teacher was required to force the learner’s hand on the electric shock plate, obedience dropped further too 30%. In one proximity variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by a telephone and obedience fell to 20.5%. This suggests that the closer an authorty figure is to an individual, the more obedient that individual will be.

Question 2

Outline Location

Answer 2

The original experiment was conducted in a prestigous university - Yale University. When the location was changed to a rundown office in a run-down part of town, obedience fell from 65% at Yale University to 48% in the run-down office. Milgram suggests that this was because when the experiment was conducted in a run-down office, the amount of perceived legitimate authority was reduced.

Question 3

Outline Power of Uniform

Answer 3

In Milgram’s original experiment, the researcher wore a grey lab coat which gave him some authority. In one variation of his study, the experimenter with the grey lab coat was called away to answer a phone call and was replaced by an ordinary member of the public who wore everyday clothes.
In this variation, obedience dropped to 20%. This suggests that uniform is a strong visual authority symbol and a cue to act in an obedient manner. When the experimenter was not in a uniform, perceived legitimate authority was reduced.

Question 4

Discuss Situational Variables affecting Obedience (3 x AO3)

Answer 4

1. Research to support situational variables affecting obedience was conducted by Bickman. He had confederates dress in three different outfits of a security guard, a milkman and a business man and ask passers-by to give money to pay for parking or pick up litter. It was found that participants were twice as likely to follow the instructions of the confederate wearing a security guard uniform than the business man. Therefore, supporting the power of uniform as a variable affecting obedience as participants were more likely to follow these orders.
2. Milgram’s research into obedience has gender bias, as it only uses male participants. Therefore, it is difficult to generalise the findings to females, as they may have obeyed differently to the variables affecting obedience, for example, some research suggests females may be more obedient because their gender roles may dictate that they be more submissive. This weakens the external validity of research into situational variables affecting obedience.
3. Moreover, it could be argued that the participants in the study were displaying demand characteristics. Orne and Holland made this point for Milgram’s original study and believed it was even more likely in his variation studies due to the extra manipulation of variables. An example of this is in the power of uniform variation when the experimenter left the room and a ‘member of the public’ gave the orders, even Milgram recognised that this situation was very staged and participants may have worked out the truth. This limits the internal validity of Milgram’s research into situational variables affecting obedience as it is unclear whether the findings are due to obedience or because participants saw through the deception and ‘play acted’.