Syllabus Edition
First teaching 2015
Last exams 2025
Milgram's Situational Variables Affecting Obedience (AQA AS Psychology): Revision Note
Exam code: 7181
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 
 
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?

