Describe and evaluate research in to the effects of situational variables on
obedience (16 marks)
After Milgram carried out his first study on obedience, he carried out a large number of
variations to consider the situational variables that may create lesser or greater obedience.
These situational variables were proximity, location and uniform.
Proximity refers to the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person
they are giving instructions to. In Milgrams study this refers to the closeness of teacher to
learner. Milgram changed the variables in a variety of ways in order to study the effects of
proximity. One condition ‘the touch proximity variation’ required the ‘teacher’ to force the
‘learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate. In this condition the obedience rate dropped to
30%. In another condition, remote proximity the experimenter left the room and gave the
instructions to the teacher by telephone in this condition the obedience rate dropped to
20.5%. The ppts in this condition also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave much
weaker shocks than they had been ordered to give.
The next situational variable was location, the place where an order is issued. In the original
study at Yale university a prestigious setting obedience was 65%. However, in the variation
the location changed to a run-down office and obedience fell to 47.5%. The next situational
variable was uniform this refers to the specific outfit peoples in positions of authority have
that is symbolic of their authority. In the baseline study the experimenter wore lab coat as a
symbol of his authority and obedience was 65%, however in the variation were the
experimenter was a member of public wearing ordinary clothes obedience dropped to 20%.
Showing uniform acts, a strong visual authority symbol.
A strength of Milgrams study is there is research support for the influence of situational
variables. For example, Bickman looked at the effects of authority on obedience, the
confederate was dressed in jacket and tie, milkman or security guard. The confederate
asked passers-by to provide a coin for the parking meter, for example. He found that people
were twice more likely to obey the security guard than the jacket/tie confederate.
Therefore, this research provides support to Milgrams conclusions that a uniform conveys
authority and is a situational factor producing obedience.
Another strength of Milgrams research is there is additional support for it. For example,
Bushman carried out a study where a female researcher, dressed either in a police style
uniform as a business executive or as a beggar and stopped people in street and instruct
them to give change to male researcher for a expired parking meter. They found when she
was in uniform, 72% of people obeyed, but obedience rates were lower when she dressed
as business executive 48% or as a beggar 52%. The people where then interviewed later and
they claimed they obeyed the woman in uniform as she appeared to have authority. Thus,
these finding provide further evidence that obedience is influenced by the amount of
authority a person is perceived to have.
Another strength of Milgrams research has been replicated in other cultures. For example,
Miranda et al found that 90% obedience in Spanish students. Therefore, suggesting
obedience (16 marks)
After Milgram carried out his first study on obedience, he carried out a large number of
variations to consider the situational variables that may create lesser or greater obedience.
These situational variables were proximity, location and uniform.
Proximity refers to the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person
they are giving instructions to. In Milgrams study this refers to the closeness of teacher to
learner. Milgram changed the variables in a variety of ways in order to study the effects of
proximity. One condition ‘the touch proximity variation’ required the ‘teacher’ to force the
‘learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate. In this condition the obedience rate dropped to
30%. In another condition, remote proximity the experimenter left the room and gave the
instructions to the teacher by telephone in this condition the obedience rate dropped to
20.5%. The ppts in this condition also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave much
weaker shocks than they had been ordered to give.
The next situational variable was location, the place where an order is issued. In the original
study at Yale university a prestigious setting obedience was 65%. However, in the variation
the location changed to a run-down office and obedience fell to 47.5%. The next situational
variable was uniform this refers to the specific outfit peoples in positions of authority have
that is symbolic of their authority. In the baseline study the experimenter wore lab coat as a
symbol of his authority and obedience was 65%, however in the variation were the
experimenter was a member of public wearing ordinary clothes obedience dropped to 20%.
Showing uniform acts, a strong visual authority symbol.
A strength of Milgrams study is there is research support for the influence of situational
variables. For example, Bickman looked at the effects of authority on obedience, the
confederate was dressed in jacket and tie, milkman or security guard. The confederate
asked passers-by to provide a coin for the parking meter, for example. He found that people
were twice more likely to obey the security guard than the jacket/tie confederate.
Therefore, this research provides support to Milgrams conclusions that a uniform conveys
authority and is a situational factor producing obedience.
Another strength of Milgrams research is there is additional support for it. For example,
Bushman carried out a study where a female researcher, dressed either in a police style
uniform as a business executive or as a beggar and stopped people in street and instruct
them to give change to male researcher for a expired parking meter. They found when she
was in uniform, 72% of people obeyed, but obedience rates were lower when she dressed
as business executive 48% or as a beggar 52%. The people where then interviewed later and
they claimed they obeyed the woman in uniform as she appeared to have authority. Thus,
these finding provide further evidence that obedience is influenced by the amount of
authority a person is perceived to have.
Another strength of Milgrams research has been replicated in other cultures. For example,
Miranda et al found that 90% obedience in Spanish students. Therefore, suggesting
