Discuss situational variables affecting obedience (16 marks)
After Milgram conducted his baseline study in 1963 on obedience, he carried out the experiment
with situational variations to see what effect the change in these variables had on obedience. The 3
situational variables Milgram changed were uniform, proximity and location.
Proximity refers to the physical distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving
instructions to. Milgram’s baseline study the teacher could here to learner, but not see them. In
Milgram’s variations the teacher and the learner where in the same room. This caused obedience
levels to drop from 60% to 40%. In the touch proximity variation where the teacher had to force the
learners hand onto the electroshock plate, obedience levels dropped by a further 30%. Furthermore,
in the remote instruction variation where the Experimenter left the room and gave the instructions
to the Teacher by telephone, obedience levels dropped to 20.5%. This shows that a decrease in
proximity causes obedience levels to drop. This is because as proximity decreases this allows people
to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions and the harm they
are causing.
A second variable Milgram altered was location. In Milgram’s baseline study the experiment was
conducted in Yale University however in Milgram’s variations it was done in a run-down office block.
This caused obedience levels to drop to 47.5%. This is thought to be because the prestigious
university environment gave the experiment legitimacy and authority. This caused the participants
to believe the Experimenter shared the legitimacy of the location and that obedience was expected.
However, obedience levels were still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived
the “scientific” nature of the procedure.
The final situational variable Milgram changed was uniform. In the baseline study the Experimenter
wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In Milgram’s variation the authority figure
(Experimenter) was called away by telephone call so a confederate, wearing ordinary clothes to
appear like an ordinary participant, took over. This caused obedience levels to drop to 20%, the
lowest of these variations. This is because uniforms encourage obedience because their authority is
legitimate and granted by society. Uniform is a recognised symbol of authority.
One strength of Milgram’s study is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational
variables on obedience. In a field experiment in New York City, Bickman (1974) had three
confederates dress in different outfits – a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s
uniform. The confederates all individually stood on the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks
such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. Bickman found that people
were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard over the one dressed in a jacket
and tie. This is a strength of Milgram’s study as it supports the view that a situational variable, such
as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience, and his findings can be applied in the real
world.
Another strength of Milgram’s study is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures. For
instance, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study
obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview
to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed. The researchers also replicated
Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. They found that when the person giving orders was not
present, obedience decreased dramatically. This is a strength of Milgram’s research on the influence
of situational variables on obedience as it suggests that his findings are not just limited to Americans
or men but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.
After Milgram conducted his baseline study in 1963 on obedience, he carried out the experiment
with situational variations to see what effect the change in these variables had on obedience. The 3
situational variables Milgram changed were uniform, proximity and location.
Proximity refers to the physical distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving
instructions to. Milgram’s baseline study the teacher could here to learner, but not see them. In
Milgram’s variations the teacher and the learner where in the same room. This caused obedience
levels to drop from 60% to 40%. In the touch proximity variation where the teacher had to force the
learners hand onto the electroshock plate, obedience levels dropped by a further 30%. Furthermore,
in the remote instruction variation where the Experimenter left the room and gave the instructions
to the Teacher by telephone, obedience levels dropped to 20.5%. This shows that a decrease in
proximity causes obedience levels to drop. This is because as proximity decreases this allows people
to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions and the harm they
are causing.
A second variable Milgram altered was location. In Milgram’s baseline study the experiment was
conducted in Yale University however in Milgram’s variations it was done in a run-down office block.
This caused obedience levels to drop to 47.5%. This is thought to be because the prestigious
university environment gave the experiment legitimacy and authority. This caused the participants
to believe the Experimenter shared the legitimacy of the location and that obedience was expected.
However, obedience levels were still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived
the “scientific” nature of the procedure.
The final situational variable Milgram changed was uniform. In the baseline study the Experimenter
wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In Milgram’s variation the authority figure
(Experimenter) was called away by telephone call so a confederate, wearing ordinary clothes to
appear like an ordinary participant, took over. This caused obedience levels to drop to 20%, the
lowest of these variations. This is because uniforms encourage obedience because their authority is
legitimate and granted by society. Uniform is a recognised symbol of authority.
One strength of Milgram’s study is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational
variables on obedience. In a field experiment in New York City, Bickman (1974) had three
confederates dress in different outfits – a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s
uniform. The confederates all individually stood on the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks
such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. Bickman found that people
were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard over the one dressed in a jacket
and tie. This is a strength of Milgram’s study as it supports the view that a situational variable, such
as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience, and his findings can be applied in the real
world.
Another strength of Milgram’s study is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures. For
instance, Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study
obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview
to a confederate desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed. The researchers also replicated
Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. They found that when the person giving orders was not
present, obedience decreased dramatically. This is a strength of Milgram’s research on the influence
of situational variables on obedience as it suggests that his findings are not just limited to Americans
or men but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.
