Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Milgram's Variations - Coggle Diagram
Milgram's Variations
Experiment 10- Rundown Office Block
AO1
Procedure Changes
Study moved to a run-down office in the busy town of Bridgeport.
The Experimenter claims to work for a private research firm.
Results
450v – 47.5%
Participants showed more doubts and asked more questions. One of them made notes as if they intended to make a complaint later and another one objected that the study was “heartless”.
Conclusions
Location influences obedience (social environment).
Location/setting is not as important for obedience as the status of the authority figure.
AO3
Strength- By moving the experiment from the prestigious Yale University to a rundown office block, Milgram tested whether the prestige and institutional setting affected obedience. The drop in obedience (from 65% to 47.5%) suggests that location and setting do influence participants' willingness to obey authority, adding realism and ecological validity to the findings.
Weakness- As with other versions of the study, the sample remained mostly male and American, limiting how far we can generalise the results across cultures and genders. Ethically, participants were still deceived and possibly distressed, raising concerns about informed consent and psychological harm, even in the less formal setting.
Strength- Despite the change in setting, the procedure remained tightly controlled—same script, roles, and shock instructions—allowing Milgram to isolate the variable of location. This strengthens the internal validity, as differences in obedience can be more confidently attributed to the environment rather than other factors.
Weakness- Even though the setting was less prestigious, the task of delivering electric shocks to a stranger is still highly artificial and not something people would encounter in real life. This reduces the mundane realism of the study, making it harder to apply the findings to everyday situations where obedience plays out in more subtle or complex ways.
Experiment 7- Telephone Instructions
AO1
Changes in Procedure
-Experimenter gives the participants their instructions at the start, then leaves the Teacher alone in the room with the shock generator and a telephone.
If the Teachers have questions or doubts, they must phone the Experimenter. The “prods” are delivered over the telephone.
Results
450v – 22.5% Some participants gave lower shocks than they were told to do (because they thought they were unobserved).
Conclusions
Physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience.
AO3
Weakness- Participants were still deceived about the true aim of the study, believing they were administering real shocks. Even though the authority figure wasn’t physically present, this deception can raise ethical concerns and might have caused emotional distress.
Weakness- Milgram noted that some participants pretended to follow instructions when the experimenter was on the phone but actually didn’t administer the shocks. This suggests possible demand characteristics and questions the validity of the data—some disobedience may have gone unnoticed.
Strength- This variation showed that physical distance from the authority figure (giving orders over the phone) significantly reduced obedience—from 65% to just 22.5%. It provides strong evidence for proximity as a situational factor, reinforcing that being physically close to authority increases obedience.
Despite the change in how instructions were given, the procedure remained highly standardised. This control allows researchers to confidently isolate the variable of proximity, improving internal validity and strengthening the causal conclusions drawn.
Experiment 13 Ordinary Man
AO1
Changes in Procedure
Experimenter explains the procedure to the participant but then is called away.
The Experimenter does not tell the Teachers to increase the shock by 15V with each incorrect answer.
A second confederate is present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of “writing down the times” of each test.
With the Experimenter gone, this confederate suggests “a new way of doing the study,” taking the voltage up by 15V each time there’s a mistake.
Results
Only 20 participants did this Variation and only 4 (20%) obeyed by going to 450V.
Conclusions
The status of the authority figure is important
but other features of the situation (the instructions, the shock generator) still create obedience.
AO3
Strength- the experimenter wore ordinary clothes instead of a lab coat and was presented as a regular participant rather than an authority figure. This change in appearance significantly reduced obedience levels (only 20% obeyed fully), highlighting the importance of perceived authority in influencing obedience. The manipulation was simple but effective, increasing the mundane realism of the scenario and showing that legitimacy of authority plays a key role in obedience.
Strength- This version of the experiment has strong applications to real-world contexts, such as why people might disobey orders from someone who lacks clear authority. It can help explain non-compliance in everyday settings where authority is unclear or informal (e.g., peer pressure versus expert instruction), supporting theories of situational influences on behavior.
Weakness- Despite the variation in authority figure, the sample still lacked diversity—participants were predominantly male and from the same cultural background (American, mostly white, middle-class). This limits the generalisability of the findings to other populations, such as women or individuals from collectivist cultures, where obedience to authority might differ due to cultural norms or social roles.