Milgram variations

Variation 1 The experiment took place in a run down office building Higher or lower obedience rate? 48%

Variation 2 The teacher and learner were in the same room Higher or lower obedience rate than the original? 40%

Variation 3 The teacher had to force the learners hand down on to the shock plate Higher or lower obedience rate than the original? 30%

Variation 4 Experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone Higher or lower obedience rate than the original? 20%

Variation 5 Participants worked in groups to shock the learner. Two rebelled and refused to go on Higher or lower obedience rate than the original? 10%

Variation 6 Someone else administered the shock Higher or lower obedience rate than the original? 92.5%

These variations help us to explain why people obey and the aspects of a situation that are likely to make people obey

Situational factors in obedience The Agentic shift This is where we can deny personal responsibility for our actions as we have been ordered to behave in this way by someone else In our minds we ‘shift’ the responsibility onto the person who told us to do it, and see ourselves as simply their ‘agent’ What evidence do we have from Milgram’s original experiments and variations, that tells us the AS may be a factor in explaining obedience

Situational factors in obedience The Agentic shift What evidence do we have from Milgram’s original experiment and variations, that tells us that agentic shift may be a factor in explaining obedience? Original – PPs were actually told that the Uni would take responsibility. Would have made it easier to make the shift in their mind. Could explain the 65% Touch proximity – As PPs actually had to force the learners hand it made it hard to undergo AS. Rate fell to 30%

Situational factors in obedience Legitimate authority For us to obey a person they must have some kind of social power over us Trust Power to punish We have to perceive a person as being in authority What evidence do we have from Milgram’s original experiments and variations, that tells us LA may be a factor in explaining obedience

Situational factors in obedience Legitimate authority Original – Experimenter wore a lab coat and it took place in a prestigious setting. Would suggest to the PPs that he had LA and should be obeyed. Could explain the 65% Change in setting – when the experiment moved to a run down office building rates dropped to 48%. PPs may not have perceived the experimenter as having LA due to the setting Remote authority – Rate dropped to 20%

Situational factors in obedience Gradual Commitment If the initial request is quite small, you don’t mind obeying The next request will be slightly more and will build up to the big request Once you have committed to those initial small things you find it hard to then suddenly drop out, as you have become committed Foot in the door – often used in sales What evidence do we have from Milgram’s original experiments and variations, that tells us GC may be a factor in explaining obedience?

Situational factors in obedience Dehumanisation – not in your booklet, see back of sheet! We are more likely to inflict harm on to someone if we can distance ourselves (the buffering effect) from the person who we are causing pain to. This is a common process of war – people who are killed are rarely seen as people but numbers or objects – the more a victim is ‘dehumanised’ the easier it is to avoid responsibility for their suffering. What evidence do we have from Milgram’s original experiments and variations, that tells us dehumanisation may be a factor in explaining obedience?

Situational factors in obedience Dehumanisation – not in your booklet, see back of sheet! When the teacher and learner were in the same room rates fell. May be due to a lack of a buffer – ppt can see the learner as a real person In the original there was a buffer (wall) between ppt and learner. PPt couldn’t see the persons face who they were inflicting pain on so they were dehumanised When the teacher couldn’t see or hear learner rate went up to 100%!

What about the person’s personality? Authoritarian personality A type of person who has extreme respect for authority and is very obedient to those that have power over them Hates challenges to authority or deviations from conventional social behaviour May be hostile to people beneath them

What about the person’s personality? Evidence to support Authoritarian personality Adorno – People who had been brought up by strict parents often grew up to be very obedient It is likely that this treatment has given them an AP Milgram and Elms – Carried out an interview with ppts from the original experiment Those who were fully obedient scored higher on a test of authoritarianism than those who did not obey