Outline and evaluate situational variables affecting obedience
After Milgram conducted his first study on obedience, he carried out a number of variations of his
study in order to investigate situational variables that may affect obedience.
In the proximity study, both the learner and teacher were in the same room. In this condition,
obedience levels fell to 40% as the teacher was made to directly experience the learner’s apparent
distress. In a more extreme variation of testing proximity, the teacher was told to force the learner’s
hand onto the shock plate. This led obedience to drop even further to 30% as the increased
proximity led the teacher to feel more of the learner’s anguish. In another variation, the
experimenter wasn’t in close proximity (i.e. not in the same room). This resulted in obedience levels
dropping further to 21%. Some even resorted to repeatedly giving the weakest shock level while
telling the experimenter they were gradually increasing it. This significant decrease may be
attributed to the fact that there was no one of authority present to prompt the teacher to continue
and so less influence or pressure was inflicted upon the teacher to continuously increase the shock
level.
Location is another factor assumed to affect obedience levels. The original study was conducted in
the psychology laboratory at Yale University. Several participants remarked that the location gave
them confidence in the reputation and integrity of people involved, and many claimed that if the
experiment had been conducted in a different setting then they would not have shocked the learner.
To examine the possibility of what might happen if the study was moved to another location,
Milgram moved is study to a rundown office in Bridgeport, with no obvious affiliations with Yale.
While obedience levels dropped, location appeared to have only a slight effect on obedience levels
as 48% of participants still carried on up until the 450 volt maximum shock level.
Research has shown that uniforms can have a powerful impact on obedience. They are easily
recognised and can be used to convey power and authority. Bushman (1988) investigated this and
carried a study where a female researcher, dressed as a police officer, business executive or a
beggar, stopped people in the street and asked them to give change to a male researcher for an
expired parking meter. When she wore the uniform, 72% of the people obeyed, whereas only 48%
obeyed her as a business executive and 52% obeyed her as a beggar. This demonstrates that
obedience levels can be influenced by uniform and so people are more likely to obey someone who
is perceived as an authority figure. This was apparent as, in follow up interviews, people claimed to
have obeyed the woman in uniform as they believed she had authority.
Milgram was often criticised for the apparent lack of concern he had for the participants’ wellbeing
in his study. For example, the participants were deceived into thinking they were taking part in a
study to analyse the effects of punishment on learning. Because of the clear deception, the
participants were unable to give informed consent for the true nature of the study. In turn, they
were then uninformed of their right to withdraw and so a number of them strongly felt that they
couldn’t leave. Although Milgram claimed that participants were free to leave, it was especially
difficult for them as they were pressured to continue whenever they gave the impression that they
wanted to leave. Additionally, the possible psychological harm that may have been inflicted on the
participants may also have not been considered and so Milgram could be scrutinised for being
careless of the mental wellbeing of the participants.
Orne and Holland (1968) suggested that participants have come to distrust psychological studies as
they often know the true purpose of the study may be disguised. In Milgram’s study, despite the fact
that the learner cried out in pain, the experimenter remained unfazed. This may have caused that
After Milgram conducted his first study on obedience, he carried out a number of variations of his
study in order to investigate situational variables that may affect obedience.
In the proximity study, both the learner and teacher were in the same room. In this condition,
obedience levels fell to 40% as the teacher was made to directly experience the learner’s apparent
distress. In a more extreme variation of testing proximity, the teacher was told to force the learner’s
hand onto the shock plate. This led obedience to drop even further to 30% as the increased
proximity led the teacher to feel more of the learner’s anguish. In another variation, the
experimenter wasn’t in close proximity (i.e. not in the same room). This resulted in obedience levels
dropping further to 21%. Some even resorted to repeatedly giving the weakest shock level while
telling the experimenter they were gradually increasing it. This significant decrease may be
attributed to the fact that there was no one of authority present to prompt the teacher to continue
and so less influence or pressure was inflicted upon the teacher to continuously increase the shock
level.
Location is another factor assumed to affect obedience levels. The original study was conducted in
the psychology laboratory at Yale University. Several participants remarked that the location gave
them confidence in the reputation and integrity of people involved, and many claimed that if the
experiment had been conducted in a different setting then they would not have shocked the learner.
To examine the possibility of what might happen if the study was moved to another location,
Milgram moved is study to a rundown office in Bridgeport, with no obvious affiliations with Yale.
While obedience levels dropped, location appeared to have only a slight effect on obedience levels
as 48% of participants still carried on up until the 450 volt maximum shock level.
Research has shown that uniforms can have a powerful impact on obedience. They are easily
recognised and can be used to convey power and authority. Bushman (1988) investigated this and
carried a study where a female researcher, dressed as a police officer, business executive or a
beggar, stopped people in the street and asked them to give change to a male researcher for an
expired parking meter. When she wore the uniform, 72% of the people obeyed, whereas only 48%
obeyed her as a business executive and 52% obeyed her as a beggar. This demonstrates that
obedience levels can be influenced by uniform and so people are more likely to obey someone who
is perceived as an authority figure. This was apparent as, in follow up interviews, people claimed to
have obeyed the woman in uniform as they believed she had authority.
Milgram was often criticised for the apparent lack of concern he had for the participants’ wellbeing
in his study. For example, the participants were deceived into thinking they were taking part in a
study to analyse the effects of punishment on learning. Because of the clear deception, the
participants were unable to give informed consent for the true nature of the study. In turn, they
were then uninformed of their right to withdraw and so a number of them strongly felt that they
couldn’t leave. Although Milgram claimed that participants were free to leave, it was especially
difficult for them as they were pressured to continue whenever they gave the impression that they
wanted to leave. Additionally, the possible psychological harm that may have been inflicted on the
participants may also have not been considered and so Milgram could be scrutinised for being
careless of the mental wellbeing of the participants.
Orne and Holland (1968) suggested that participants have come to distrust psychological studies as
they often know the true purpose of the study may be disguised. In Milgram’s study, despite the fact
that the learner cried out in pain, the experimenter remained unfazed. This may have caused that
