- Created by: livbowryxo
- Created on: 12-11-18 11:05
In Milgram's original study the teacher and learner were adjoining rooms, the teacher was able to hear the learner but wasn't able to see him. But in the proximity variation the teacher and learner were in the same room. The obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%. In a further touch proximity condition, where the teacher had to force the learner to put his hand onto an 'electroshock plate' when he refused to answer a question, the obedience rate dropped a further 30%. In a third touch proximity, the experiment had left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone. The outcome was a further reduction to 20.5%.
Milgram changed the location of the obedience study and conducted it in a run down building rather than the prestiguous university setting. The obedience rate fell to 47.5%. This is due to the experiment having less authority.
In the original study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority. Milgram carried it out in which the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call. The role of the experiment was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes instead of a lab coat, obedience dropped to 20%.
EVALUATION OF MILGRAM'S VARIATIONS
RESEARCH SUPPORT- Bickman has demonstrated the influence of these situational variables on obedience. He studied a field experiment in New York city (1974). Bickman had 3 confederates dressed in 3 different outfits, jacket and tie, a milkmans outfit, and a security guards uniform. The confederates were standing in the street and asking people who passed…