The document discusses Milgram's variations on his obedience experiments and explanations for obedience. It outlines six variations Milgram conducted that altered proximity, location, or uniform from the original experiment. These include having someone else administer shocks, giving instructions over the phone, changing the location, and making participants work in groups. The variations showed obedience levels from 10% to 92.5%, supporting situational explanations. Explanations for obedience discussed are agentic state, legitimacy of authority, proximity, location, and uniform.

1. Social Psychology
Factors Affecting Obedience (Part 2)

2. Lesson Objectives
To outline Milgram’s variations and explain how these variations support
the situational variable affecting obedience, including:
 Proximity
 Location
 Uniform
Specification: Explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority, and
situational variables affecting obedience including proximity, location and uniform, as
investigated by Milgram. Dispositional explanation for obedience: the Authoritarian
Personality..

3. Comparing & Contrasting Obedience
Task: Complete the table below with the key results from Milgram, Hofling
and Bickman and then examine the similarities and differences of the
research examined today, with Milgram. Hint: You could compare method
and/or results.
KEY RESULTS SIMILARITIES TO MILGRAM DIFFERENCES TO MILGRAM
MILGRAM(1963)HOFFLINGETAL.(1966)
6 Minutes
Consider the following:
 The type of obedience (e.g. who they were
obeying)
 The type of experimental method (e.g. lab,
field, etc.)
 Ethical guidelines, etc.

4. KEY RESULTS SIMILARITIES TO MILGRAM DIFFERENCES TO MILGRAMMILGRAM(1963)HOFFLINGETAL.
(1966)
BICKMAN(1974)
 Both studies used observational
methods
 Both experiments showed high
levels of obedience to a
legitimate source of authority
 Both studies broke ethical
guidelines – deception, informed
consent, protection from harm
 Both studies show people
obeying a person in position of
power, who was wearing a
uniform.
 Milgram used a volunteer
sample, whereas Hofling used an
opportunity sample
 The authority figure in Hofling’s
study was their boss, which
should mean they have more
‘power’
 Bickman used a field study, so we
can establish cause and effect;
whereas, Milgram used a
controlled observation
 100%=300 volts
 65%=450 volts
 21/22 Nurses
obeyed
Paper bag request:
 82% Guard
 64% Milkman
 36% Normal
person

5. Obedience
To outline variations of Milgram’s (1963) research and consider different
psychological explanations of obedience.
To apply the variations of Milgram’s research to different explanations for
obedience and consider how Milgram’s research supports these
explanations.

6. Milgram (1963)
Question: In Milgram’s (1963) original experiment, what % of participants
went up to 450 volts?
Task: The following slides contain six
different variations to Milgram’s
original experiment.
On the sugar paper write the
variations higher or lower in terms of
the % of participants you think who
went to 450volts…for example 

7. Variation 1
The experiment took place in a run down office building.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?

8. Variation 2
Someone else administered the electric shock when the learner got an
answer wrong and NOT the real participant.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?

9. Variation 3
The experimenter gave the instructions to the teacher over the phone and
was NOT in the same room.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?

10. Variation 4
The teacher and the learner were in the same room.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?

11. Variation 5
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock
plate.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went
to the full 450 volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?

12. Variation 6
Participants worked in groups to shock the learner; however, two rebelled
and refused to go on.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?

13. Can You Explain Why?
Task: Examine your highest and lowest variations. As a group, write one
reason that can explain why more people obeyed (for your highest
variation) and one reason why less people obeyed for your lowest
variation…
2:001:591:581:571:561:551:541:531:521:511:501:491:481:471:461:451:441:431:421:411:401:391:381:371:361:351:341:331:321:311:301:291:281:271:261:251:241:231:221:211:201:191:181:171:161:151:141:131:121:111:101:091:081:071:061:051:041:031:021:011:000:590:580:570:560:550:540:530:520:510:500:490:480:470:460:450:440:430:420:410:400:390:380:370:360:350:340:330:320:310:300:290:280:270:260:250:240:230:220:210:200:190:180:170:160:150:140:130:120:110:100:090:080:070:060:050:040:030:020:01End2:00

14. Variation 1
The experiment took place in a run down office building.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?
Obedience dropped to 48%

15. Variation 2
Someone else administered the electric shock when the learner got an
answer wrong and NOT the real participant.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?
Obedience rose
to 92.5%

16. Variation 3
The experimenter gave the instructions to the teacher over the phone and
was NOT in the same room.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?
Obedience
dropped to 20%

17. Variation 4
The teacher and the learner were in the same room.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?
Obedience dropped to 40%

18. Variation 5
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock
plate.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to
the full 450 volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?
Obedience
dropped to 30%

19. Variation 6
Participants worked in groups to shock the learner; however, two rebelled
and refused to go on.
Question: Do you think the % of participants who went to the full 450
volts was higher or lower than 65%? Why?
Obedience dropped to 10%

20. Milgram (1963) - Variations
Task: Complete the table on your handout with the percentage of
participants who administered 450 volts in each of the different variations.

21. Milgram (1963) - Variations
MILGRAM’S VARIATIONS %
Someone else administered the shock. 92.5%
Milgram’s Original. 65%
The experiment took place in a rundown office building. 48%
The teacher and learner were in the same room. 40%
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. 30%
The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone. 20%
Participants worked in groups to shock the learner. (Two rebelled and
refused to go on). 10%

22. Variation Overall conformity on critical trials
(higher/lower) and % (if applicable)
Group Size: 1 Confederate Lower (3%)
Group Size: 2 Confederates Lower (12.8%)
Group Size: 3 Confederates Remained the same (32%)
Group Size: 15 Confederates Lower (29%)
Historical Context/Expertise: Perrin & Spencer (1981) 0.25%
Culture: Meta-analysis by Smith & Bond - Fiji 58%
Culture: Meta-analysis by Smith & Bond - Belgium 15%
Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave the
correct answer throughout.
5%
Unanimity – Where one of the confederates gave a
different incorrect answer to the majority.
9%
Task Difficulty – Where the task was made significantly
more difficult, by making the different between the
line lengths significantly smaller.
Increased.

23. Milgram (1963) - Variations
MILGRAM’S VARIATIONS %
Someone else administered the shock. 92.5%
Milgram’s Original. 65%
The experiment took place in a rundown office building. 48%
The teacher and learner were in the same room. 40%
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate. 30%
The experimenter gave instructions to the teacher over the phone. 20%
Participants worked in groups to shock the learner. (Two rebelled and
refused to go on). 10%

24. Explanations of Obedience
Task: Complete the table provided. Read each of the descriptions for the factors
affecting obedience and work out what variation(s) of Milgram support each
explanation and explain why.

25. Explanations of Obedience – Possible Answers
FACTOR AFFECTING
OBEDIENCE
DESCRIPTION OF EXPLANATION
LINK TO MILGRAM’S
VARIATIONS AND/OR
BICKMAN AND HOFLING
HOW DOES THIS VARIATION SUPPORT THE
EXPLANATION? Hint: Discuss the difference between
Milgram’s original finding and the variation chosen…
AGENTIC
STATE
This is where we can deny
personal responsibility for our
actions as we have been ordered
to behave in this way, OR we can
‘shift’ the responsibility onto the
person who told us to do it.
LEGITIMACY
OF AUTHORITY
An authority figure must have
some kind of social power over us,
which is usually the power to
punish. We have to perceive the
person as genuine in order to
follow their instructions.
Someone else
administered the
electric shock
and not the real
participant.
Bickman
Hofling
Milgram’s
orignial
Example Answer: When someone else
administered the electric shock the
real participant is able to shift the
responsibility onto someone else
which explains why the level of
obedience rose from 65% to 92.% in
this variation.
Now it’s your turn…

26. Explanations of Obedience – Possible Answers
UNIFORM
Research suggests that we are
more likely to obey a person in
uniform, in comparison to a
person not wearing a uniform.
LOCATION
Not only does a uniform affect
obedience, but so does the
legitimacy of the location. We
have to believe that the location
is a genuine setting for an order
to take place.
PROXIMITY
Finally, the closer we are to the
consequences of our actions the
less likely we are obey, as we can
see the potentially
negative/harmful effects of our
behaviour.
Bickman (1974)
Location moved to
a run-down office
building.
Teacher and learning
in the same room.
Teacher forces
learner’s hand onto a
shock plate
When the actor was dressed as a
guard, obedience was 82% compared
to 36% as a civilian (when asking
people to pick up a paper bag)…
When the location was moved from a
university to a run down building,
obedience dropped from 65% to 48%
When the teacher and learner were
in the same room, obedience
dropped from 65% to 40%.
When the teacher force the learners
had onto a shock, obedience dropped
from 65% to 30%.

27. Application Questions
Task: Answer the
first of the two
application
questions.
5 Minutes

28. Application Questions
When you are a passenger on a train, you are much more likely to move to
another seat if the ticket collector tells you to move than if another passenger
tells you to do so. Use your knowledge of why people obey to explain this
behaviour. (4 marks)
There are various reasons why people obey:
 Legitimate authority
 Power of uniform
Any other psychological explanation, if it is relevant to the scenario, is creditworthy.
On a train, it is likely that the ticket collector is seen as having legitimate
authority and so will be obeyed, however another passenger does not have
such authority and so is unlikely to be obeyed.
For full marks there must be explicit engagement with the stem.

29. Application Questions
Task: Answer the
second of the two
application
questions.
5 Minutes

30. Application Questions
In a hospital, you are very likely to obey a nurse. However, if you meet her
outside the hospital, for example in a shop, you are much less likely to obey.
Using your knowledge of how people resist pressures to obey, explain why
you are less likely to obey the nurse outside the hospital. (4 marks)
Reasons why people are less likely to obey might include:
 Not accepting that the person giving the order has legitimate authority
 Not accepting that the location is legitimate for this person to given an
order
Any other reason for resisting obedience which has been made relevant to
the stem. Candidates could consider one reason in detail or more than one
but in less detail.
One mark for identifying the reason(s) and further marks for elaboration.