Situational

• Following the publication of Milgram's findings a number of theories were put forward to explain blind obedience. One of these is known as situational variables. Following the publication of Milgram's findings a number of theories were put forward to explain blind obedience. One of these is known as situational variables.
• Proximity refers to how close we are to something. Pps could not see Wallace. They were not in close proximity. This resulted in 65% of participants going to the full 450v. Proximity of the 'victim' Milgram variated his original study to make the participant and Mr Wallace be within a close proximity by putting them in the same room. Obedience rates dropped from 65% to 40% . In a further variation, ppt had to force Mr Wallace hand onto a shock plate when he refused to answer a question. This saw obedience reduce even further to 30%.
• Proximity of the 'authority figure' Milgram then variated the proximity of the experimenter who was giving the orders to the participant. In the original study, he was in the same room as the participant. However, in this variation he made the experimenter give the orders (the verbal prods) over the phone in a separate room. This also saw obedience rates fall from 65% to 20.5%.
• Another situational variable is location. Milgram's original study was carried out at Yale University (a prestigious university with high academic standards) and saw obedience rates at 65%. Milgram then variated the original study to take place in a run-down office block. In this variation obedience dropped to 48%.
• Society teaches to obey those in legitimate uniform as this signals authority. Bickman conducted research into influence of uniform on obedience levels. researcher made small request to 153 ppl. Either to pick a paper bag up from the floor, give a dime for parking meter or to move away from a bus stop. IV was outfit researcher wore when making this request. researcher dressed as a milkman, second as guard and the third in sports jacket and tie. It was found that the guard produced the highest obedience rate which supports the idea we are more likely to obey those who are dressed in a uniform.
• Limitation-ignores dispositional explanations suggesting personality influences obedience levels. For example, authoritarian personality is more likely to obey. Reductionist as they explain obedience levels to be influenced by one small factor (situation) and in doing so ignore the bigger picture. More beneficial to consider explanations of obedience holistically by suggesting an authoritarian personality makes us more susceptible to following orders but the situation you are in heightens obedience levels. limitation because situational variables may not offer a full explanation of obedience.
• A strength of this research into situational variables is that it has taught us a lot about obedience as we know it today. For example, we tend to associate uniforms with positions of power so a uniform can often encourage obedience. When we see a uniform, we accept that their authority is legitimate so are more likely to obey those wearing one. This would explain why we might double-check our behaviours when we see a police officer on patrol to ensure we are obeying orders in the form of laws.
• Likewise, in Milgram's variation regarding location, Yale University is a very prestigious university associated with high academic standards. Orders given in an organisation such as this are more likely to be obeyed as people feel as though they are more likely to be legitimate. This could explain why students at school wilfollow the rules set out by the institution but then disobey orders at home.
• Finally, it would appear that a greater proximity from both the victim and the authority figure makes an individual fear the consequences of their actions less. This is because they feel less anxious about the consequences of their actions if they cannot be seen. This is a strength because the findings can be used to explain many examples of obedience.
• A limitation is that Milgram's research has low ecological validity. Orne and Holland (1968) suggested that obedience in real life does not look like it did in Milgram's set up and so it is possible that this explanation for obedience may not be valid for other more representative situations. Research such as Bickman's (1974) is more ecologically valid as it was a field experiment and tasks represent more realistic examples of obedience. This is a limitation of Milgram's research into this explanation because the findings may not be valid evidence to support this.