Milgram - Situational Variables

• what are Milgram's situational variables?


  • proximity
  • location
  • uniform
• finding of proximity experiment


  in original study (baseline) - teacher and learner weren't in the same room, they could hear each other only

  variation: in the same room together

  findings: obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
• findings of location experiment

  original study (baseline) - conducted in a lab setting in yale university

  variation: conducted in a run down office building

  findings: obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%
• conclusion from proximity experiment 


  Decreased proximity allows the teacher to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

  Closer proximity decreases obedience
• conclusion of location experiment

  the prestigious university environment gave milgram's study legitimacy of authority
• findings of uniform experiment

  baseline - 'experimenter' wore a grey laboratory coat, symbolising authority

  variation: experimenter was called away and a confederate in ordinary clothes took over

  findings: obedience dropped to 20%
• conclusion of uniform experiment


  Uniform encourages obedience, widely recognised authority symbol. Wearing uniform makes you entitled to expect obedience, authority is legitimate
• 1st eval of situational variables


  research support: Bickman 1974 -> study conducted into the social power of uniform. conducted in NYC where 3 confederates dressed as a milkman, casual clothes ort a guard asked opportunity samples to follow an order e.g pick up litter

  findings: people were twice as likely to obey the guard than the ordinarily dressed man,

  • supports the variable on uniform
  • external validity - suggests milgram is accurate as behaviour is seen in a less artificial environment
• 2nd eval of situational variable


  more research support: Meeus & Raajmakers 1986 conducted a study with Dutch participants

  study: make the participants say stressful things to a person being interviewed (confederate) who is desperate for a job.

  findings: 90% of participants obeyed

  also replicated Milgram's findings in proximity

  • suggests that Milgram's findings dont just apply to one culture, but are also valid across women to
• 3rd eval of situational variables


  • counterpoint to Meeus & Raajmakers: Smith & Bond 1998 -> there are cultural differences so findings cant be generalised.

  As they conducted two studies: India 1968 and Jordan 1985. These countries aren't similar in culture to the US or UK, where other studies took place

  ethnocentrism -> assuming all people and cultures will respond the same way to obedience, despite original test being from USA
• 4th eval of situational variables

  criticism: low internal validity -> Orne & Holland said that participants were aware that the procedure was fake. This was more suggested towards the variables due to the further manipulation of the IV.

  It is unclear if the participants responded to demand characteristics.

  lowers credibility of findings -> low internal validity
• 5th eval of situational variables


  danger: situational perspective

  • milgram's findings support situational explanations of obedience (only)
  • Mandel 1998 argued that it offers an excuse for evil behaviours, so in this view the Nazis were simply obeying orders
  • Milgram ignores the idea of dispositional explanations/factors for obedience
  • the explanation of obedience is reductionist if solely relying on situational factors