Social Influence
- Obedience: Situational Variables
Proximity (AO1)
- In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but the not see him
- But in the Proximity variation, the Teacher and Learner were in the same room,
where obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
- In the ‘touch proximity variation’ the teacher forced the learners hand onto an
electroshock plate if he refused to put it there after getting an answer wrong
- Obedience then dropped to 30%
- In the ‘remote proximity variation’, the Experimenter left the room and gave
instructions to the teacher by phone, obedience then dropped to 20.5%
- This is because decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance
themselves from their actions
Location (AO1)
- Milgram conducted the experiment in a run-down office block, where obedience fell
to 47.5%
- This is because the run-down office had less legitimacy of authority so the
experimenter had less legitimacy of authority
- But obedience was still relatively high due to the scientific procedure
Uniform (AO1)
- In one variation, the experimenter was a confederate dressed in normal clothes, and
the obedience rate dropped to 20%
- This is because uniform have legitimacy of authority so they are more respected in
society
Research Support (Strength) (AO3)
- Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in different outfits, a jacket & tie, milkman’s
outfit and a security guard’s uniform
- They each stood on the street and asked people to perform tasks like picking up litter
- People were more likely to obey the policeman than the person in jacket & tie
- This supports that uniform is a strong situational variable of obedience
Cross Cultural replications (Strength) (AO3)
- Milgram’s experiment has been replicated in different cultures
- For example, Meeus and Raajimakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to
Dutch participants
- They were ordered to say stressful things to a confederate desperate for a job. (0%
of participants agreed
- This suggests Milgram’s findings are not limited to American men and apply to
women too
Low internal Validity (Limitation) (AO3)
- Participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked
- Orne and Holland (1969) said that this is more likely in his other variation, such as
when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public
- So it is unclear weather participants acted genuinely or play-acted
- Obedience: Situational Variables
Proximity (AO1)
- In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but the not see him
- But in the Proximity variation, the Teacher and Learner were in the same room,
where obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
- In the ‘touch proximity variation’ the teacher forced the learners hand onto an
electroshock plate if he refused to put it there after getting an answer wrong
- Obedience then dropped to 30%
- In the ‘remote proximity variation’, the Experimenter left the room and gave
instructions to the teacher by phone, obedience then dropped to 20.5%
- This is because decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance
themselves from their actions
Location (AO1)
- Milgram conducted the experiment in a run-down office block, where obedience fell
to 47.5%
- This is because the run-down office had less legitimacy of authority so the
experimenter had less legitimacy of authority
- But obedience was still relatively high due to the scientific procedure
Uniform (AO1)
- In one variation, the experimenter was a confederate dressed in normal clothes, and
the obedience rate dropped to 20%
- This is because uniform have legitimacy of authority so they are more respected in
society
Research Support (Strength) (AO3)
- Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in different outfits, a jacket & tie, milkman’s
outfit and a security guard’s uniform
- They each stood on the street and asked people to perform tasks like picking up litter
- People were more likely to obey the policeman than the person in jacket & tie
- This supports that uniform is a strong situational variable of obedience
Cross Cultural replications (Strength) (AO3)
- Milgram’s experiment has been replicated in different cultures
- For example, Meeus and Raajimakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to
Dutch participants
- They were ordered to say stressful things to a confederate desperate for a job. (0%
of participants agreed
- This suggests Milgram’s findings are not limited to American men and apply to
women too
Low internal Validity (Limitation) (AO3)
- Participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked
- Orne and Holland (1969) said that this is more likely in his other variation, such as
when the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public
- So it is unclear weather participants acted genuinely or play-acted
