Milgram's Situational Variables Affecting Obedience (AQA AS Psychology)
Revision Note
Written by: Claire Neeson
Reviewed by: Lucy Vinson
Milgram's variable: proximity
Proximity refers to how close to/far away someone or something is
Destructive obedience is more easily achieved if the person/people being harmed are out of sight (if they can't be seen then this reduces moral strain)
Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases as proximity increases (and vice versa)
The closer the 'Teacher' is to the 'Learner', the less likely it is that obedience will follow
In Milgram's original (1963) study, the Teacher and the Learner were in separate rooms (the Teacher could hear, but not see, the Learner)
Milgram conducted a series of variations to his original procedure to investigate the effect of proximity:
When the Teacher and the Learner were in the same room obedience (measured as the number of participants who went to 450 volts) dropped from 65% to 40%
In another proximity variation, the Teacher had to force the Learner’s hand onto an electromagnetic shock plate
This variation resulted in obedience dropping to 30%
Another variation involved a lack of proximity between the participant and the experimenter
The experimenter left the room after setting up the experiment
The experimenter then proceeded to issue instructions by phone
Obedience dropped even further in this condition with 20.5% of the participants going to 450 volts
Milgram concluded that proximity is a key variable in destructive obedience
The more remote the victim, the easier it is to harm them
Milgram's variable: uniform
If an individual perceives someone to be an authority figure then they are much more likely to obey orders from them than from someone who appears to lack status or authority
Research by Bickman (1974) showed that people were more likely to obey a confederate dressed as a security guard than a milkman or a man in plain clothes (this condition resulted in the lowest levels of obedience), hence a uniform confers authority, even when it is not a police uniform
Obedience towards authority figures is something that is culturally transmitted
Obedience is taught both directly and indirectly
Obedience is taught via cultural and societal norms as part of someone’s childhood experiences
Most cultures operate a social hierarchy in which authority figures occupy the highest positions and expect to be obeyed
Authority figures are often identifiable by their uniforms
Uniform, therefore, is a key marker of a legitimate authority
Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases as the authority of the experimenter decreases (uniform or no uniform)
In Milgram's original (1963) study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat
He 'looked like' he was officially in charge of the study
The grey lab coat served as his uniform
Milgram conducted a variation to his original procedure to investigate the effect of uniform, as follows:
The experimenter (wearing the grey lab coat) pretended to have to leave the room
This original experimenter was replaced by a man in plain clothes
In this variation only 20 % of participants went up to 450 volts
Milgram concluded that a uniform - even when it is as sparse as a lab coat - confers authority on the wearer and thus results in higher levels of obedience
Milgram's variable: location
One of the binding factors that explains obedience in Milgram's original study is the location
Yale University is a highly prestigious college with a reputation for excellence
Having the procedure take place at Yale University conferred status and prestige on the proceedings
The idea that the participants were 'helping science' was bolstered by the choice of location
Milgram wanted to explore the idea that obedience decreases when the location of the study changes from high to low status
Milgram conducted a variation to his original procedure to investigate the effect of location, as follows:
Milgram ran the study in a run-down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut
Participants were told the experiment was being run by the Research Association of Bridgeport
there was no mention at all of Yale University
In this variation, the percentage of participants who went to 450 volts dropped to 47.5%
Milgram concluded that location affects obedience
The less credible, low-status location resulted in a lower level of obedience
Evaluation of Milgram's situational variables
Strengths
Research such as Bickman's (1974) outlined above lends support to the idea that situational variables such as uniform affect obedience
Bickman's study was a field experiment with naive participants
it has high ecological validity due to the participants' lack of awareness of their participation in the study
the study also used a degree of control with its three distinct conditions of the independent variable which means that it has some reliability
Milgram stuck to the same standardised procedure in all of the variations he conducted which means that the results are easy to compare to check for reliability
Limitations
Some of the variations may have been more difficult to fake:
The proximity condition in which the Teacher had to place the Learner's hand on the shock plate would mean that the Learner had to produce some very convincing acting - which is not an easy task to achieve
Any suspicion from the participants that they were being set up would impact the validity of the findings
Milgram's conclusion that situational variables explain destructive obedience could be abused for nefarious reasons
Acts of cruelty, tyranny or brutality could be excused as 'the situation made me do it' which is a worrying idea
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?