Milgram’s situational variables
- Carried out many variations to consider situational variables that might lead to more or
less obedience.
Proximity variation
proximity - teacher and learner are in the same room – obedience rate dropped from 65%
to 40%
touch proximity – teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate when
he refused to answer the question – obedience rate dropped to 30%
remote instruction – experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by
telephone – obedience rate dropped to 20.5%
Explanation - Allows participants to psychologically distance themselves from the
consequences of their actions.
Location variation
- Conducted the study in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale
university.
- Obedience fell to 47.5% from 65%.
Explanation – prestigious environment gave the study legitimacy and authority;
participants perceived the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was
expected.
Uniform
- Experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of
the procedure.
- The role of the experimenter was taken over by ‘an ordinary member of the public’
(confederate in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat which gives higher status and
greater level of legitimacy)
- Obedience rate dropped to 20%
Explanation – uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised
symbols of authority, we expect that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect
obedience because their authority is legitimate.
EVALUATION
Research support – situational variables on obedience
- Bickman – conducted a field experiment in New York.
- 3 confederates dress in different outfits (jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit, and security
guard uniform)
- Carried out many variations to consider situational variables that might lead to more or
less obedience.
Proximity variation
proximity - teacher and learner are in the same room – obedience rate dropped from 65%
to 40%
touch proximity – teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate when
he refused to answer the question – obedience rate dropped to 30%
remote instruction – experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by
telephone – obedience rate dropped to 20.5%
Explanation - Allows participants to psychologically distance themselves from the
consequences of their actions.
Location variation
- Conducted the study in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale
university.
- Obedience fell to 47.5% from 65%.
Explanation – prestigious environment gave the study legitimacy and authority;
participants perceived the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was
expected.
Uniform
- Experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of
the procedure.
- The role of the experimenter was taken over by ‘an ordinary member of the public’
(confederate in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat which gives higher status and
greater level of legitimacy)
- Obedience rate dropped to 20%
Explanation – uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised
symbols of authority, we expect that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect
obedience because their authority is legitimate.
EVALUATION
Research support – situational variables on obedience
- Bickman – conducted a field experiment in New York.
- 3 confederates dress in different outfits (jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit, and security
guard uniform)
