Situational Variables Affecting Obedience Including Proximity And Location As Investigated By Milgram, And Uniform-Worksheet Answers

01 | Describe

Describe how Milgram investigated obedience in his original study.
Milgram recruited 40 male volunteers who believed they were taking part in a study on memory. Each participant was assigned the role of ‘teacher’ while a confederate always played the ‘learner’. The teacher was instructed to give electric shocks to the learner for each incorrect answer, increasing the voltage each time. The shocks weren’t real, but the participant believed they were. The study took place at Yale University, and the experimenter wore a lab coat to appear authoritative. The key finding was that 65% of participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock, showing high levels of obedience.

02 | Identify and Explain

Situational variables affecting obedience:

Factor	Explanation
Proximity	Obedience dropped when the teacher and learner were physically closer. For example, when in the same room, obedience fell to 40%. It dropped further to 30% when the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate.
Location	When the study was moved from Yale University to a run-down office building, obedience fell to 47.5%, suggesting the prestige of the setting influences obedience.
Uniform	Authority figures in uniform are more likely to be obeyed. In Milgram’s study, the experimenter wore a lab coat. In Bickman’s study, people obeyed more when orders were given by someone in a security uniform.

03 | Interpret the Findings

Finding	This shows us...
1. 65% gave the full 450V shock.	People are highly likely to obey authority figures even when it involves harming others.
2. Obedience dropped to 47.5% in a run-down office building.	Authority is seen as more legitimate in prestigious settings.
3. Obedience fell to 40% when teacher and learner were in the same room, and to 30% when touching.	Physical closeness to the consequences reduces obedience.
4. Instructions by phone led to 20.5% obedience.	Reduced direct supervision lowers the likelihood of following orders.
5. Uniformed authority figures increased obedience in Bickman’s study.	People obey more when the authority appears legitimate through symbols like uniform.

04 | Evaluate the Research Using PBWC

A strength of Milgram’s research is the high level of experimental control.
Point: One strength is that the study had strong experimental control.
Because: This is because Milgram was able to manipulate specific variables like proximity and location while keeping other conditions constant.
Why: This makes it easier to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the situational variable and obedience levels.
Counter: However, some argue that the artificial nature of the lab setting may limit how realistic the findings are.

A weakness of Milgram’s study is that it may lack internal validity.
Point: A key weakness is that the study may not have measured true obedience.
Because: Some participants may have realised the shocks weren’t real and acted according to what they thought was expected of them (demand characteristics).
Why: This would mean the findings may not reflect genuine behaviour in real obedience scenarios.
Counter: However, Milgram argued that participants showed extreme signs of stress, suggesting they did believe the situation was real.

Another criticism is poor external validity.
Point: Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking external validity.
Because: The controlled lab setting and unusual task of giving electric shocks do not reflect real-life situations.
Why: This makes it difficult to generalise the results to everyday obedience scenarios.
Counter: However, similar findings were seen in real-life situations like Bickman’s field study, suggesting the results are more generalisable than they first appear.

Ethical concerns were raised, particularly about deception.
Point: A major ethical issue is the high level of deception used in the study.
Because: Participants believed they were giving real shocks and were unaware of the true aim.
Why: This could have caused unnecessary distress and long-term psychological harm.
Counter: Despite this, Milgram debriefed all participants afterwards and most said they were glad to have taken part.

05 | Apply Your Knowledge

Scenario (rewritten version):

A teacher tells a group of Year 10 students to stop talking while revising in her classroom, and they immediately follow the instruction. A few days later, she gives the same instruction while they are chatting in the school canteen, but this time they laugh and ignore her.

4-mark model answer:
The students obeyed in the classroom because the teacher was in close proximity and in a setting where her authority is seen as legitimate. This links to Milgram’s research where obedience was higher in a formal setting like Yale. In the canteen, the setting is informal, and the teacher’s authority may not be viewed the same way, reducing obedience. The change in location likely reduced her perceived legitimacy.

06 | Essay Plan (16 marks)

Q: Discuss research into situational variables that affect obedience.

Describe what research has shown us (AO1)	Evaluate the research using PBWC (AO3)
Milgram found that obedience dropped when proximity to the learner increased, such as when the teacher had to touch the learner's hand (30%).	High control in lab studies makes it easier to establish cause and effect. However, this might reduce realism (low ecological validity).
Obedience fell to 47.5% when the experiment was moved from Yale to a run-down office, showing that the location’s prestige affects obedience.	Findings may lack generalisability, but are supported by Bickman’s field study showing real-world obedience to uniformed figures.
Bickman’s study showed people obeyed more when the person giving orders wore a uniform (e.g., security guard), highlighting the power of perceived authority.	Some participants in Milgram’s study may not have believed the setup was real, which questions internal validity. Yet signs of stress suggest they believed they were hurting someone, supporting the study’s credibility.