Describe and evaluate research in to the effects of situational variables on obedience
(16 marks)
Ao1:
After Milgram carried out his first study on obedience, he carried out a large number of
variations to consider the situational variables that may create lesser or greater obedience.
These situational variables were: proximity, location and uniform.
In Milgram’s study proximity refers to the closeness of teacher to learner. In one condition
Milgram placed the teacher and learner in the same room, obedience rates decreased from
65% to 40%. So, with a closer proximity, the ppts weren't able to divorce themselves from
their actions' consequences. The heightened awareness caused obedience levels to drop. In
the second condition, the teacher forced the learner's hand onto electroshock plate.
Obedience fell even further to 30%. With a closer proximity, the ppts were less able to
divorce themselves from their actions' consequences. The heightened awareness caused
obedience levels to drop. Lastly, the experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the
phone. Here, obedience fell to 20.5%. The teachers pretended to give shocks or gave
weaker ones than they were meant to. Reduced power of authority due to less immediate
pressure means ppts are less likely to obey.
The next situational variable was location. The study was conducted in a run-down building
as opposed to the prestigious setting of Yale university. It seemed as if the experimenter had
much less authority in this setting, therefore obedience fell to 47.5% from 65%. The run-
down building lowered the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure, therefore ppts were
less likely to obey an order from someone with less authority. The last situational variable
was uniform. Uniform of the experimenter was changed from a lab coat to an ordinary
person wearing everyday clothes. Obedience rate therefore dropped to 20% (the lowest out
of all these variations). Wearing of uniforms gives the perception of added legitimacy to
authority figures when delivering orders. Therefore, ppts were less likely to obey a normal
civilian as they lack the legitimacy of an authority figure.
Ao3:
There is supporting evidence for the influence of situational variables on obedience. In a field
experiment, Bickman (1974) found that ppts were twice as likely to perform tasks such as
pick up litter for a confederate dressed as a security guard as opposed to a jacket and tie.
This supports Milgram's conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is
a situational factor likely to produce obedience.
A strength of Milgram's variations is that he systematically altered one variable at a time
(e.g. proximity) to see the effect on obedience level. All other procedures & variables
remained constant so that he could draw causal conclusions about the effect of the IV on the
DV.
Mandel argues that this 'situational' explanation of obedience offers an excuse or 'alibi' for
evil behaviour. He believes it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that Nazis were
simply obeying orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control. To support
his point he said that the mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity to the
(16 marks)
Ao1:
After Milgram carried out his first study on obedience, he carried out a large number of
variations to consider the situational variables that may create lesser or greater obedience.
These situational variables were: proximity, location and uniform.
In Milgram’s study proximity refers to the closeness of teacher to learner. In one condition
Milgram placed the teacher and learner in the same room, obedience rates decreased from
65% to 40%. So, with a closer proximity, the ppts weren't able to divorce themselves from
their actions' consequences. The heightened awareness caused obedience levels to drop. In
the second condition, the teacher forced the learner's hand onto electroshock plate.
Obedience fell even further to 30%. With a closer proximity, the ppts were less able to
divorce themselves from their actions' consequences. The heightened awareness caused
obedience levels to drop. Lastly, the experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the
phone. Here, obedience fell to 20.5%. The teachers pretended to give shocks or gave
weaker ones than they were meant to. Reduced power of authority due to less immediate
pressure means ppts are less likely to obey.
The next situational variable was location. The study was conducted in a run-down building
as opposed to the prestigious setting of Yale university. It seemed as if the experimenter had
much less authority in this setting, therefore obedience fell to 47.5% from 65%. The run-
down building lowered the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure, therefore ppts were
less likely to obey an order from someone with less authority. The last situational variable
was uniform. Uniform of the experimenter was changed from a lab coat to an ordinary
person wearing everyday clothes. Obedience rate therefore dropped to 20% (the lowest out
of all these variations). Wearing of uniforms gives the perception of added legitimacy to
authority figures when delivering orders. Therefore, ppts were less likely to obey a normal
civilian as they lack the legitimacy of an authority figure.
Ao3:
There is supporting evidence for the influence of situational variables on obedience. In a field
experiment, Bickman (1974) found that ppts were twice as likely to perform tasks such as
pick up litter for a confederate dressed as a security guard as opposed to a jacket and tie.
This supports Milgram's conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is
a situational factor likely to produce obedience.
A strength of Milgram's variations is that he systematically altered one variable at a time
(e.g. proximity) to see the effect on obedience level. All other procedures & variables
remained constant so that he could draw causal conclusions about the effect of the IV on the
DV.
Mandel argues that this 'situational' explanation of obedience offers an excuse or 'alibi' for
evil behaviour. He believes it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that Nazis were
simply obeying orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control. To support
his point he said that the mass killing of Jews was undertaken in close proximity to the
