Situational explanations

• Weakness of proximity

  • Hofling et al (1966) studied obedience in a hospital. Nurses were asked by an authority figure to give a potentially dangerous dose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient through telephone. . 95% of nurses (21 out of 22) followed this order.
  • This suggests that in real life situations, authority figures can still have a very powerful influence on behaviour even from a distance.
  • It would therefore appear that Milgram overestimated the extent to which placing the authority figure at a distance influences obedience.
• Strength of location

  • When Milgram changed the location of his experiment from Yale to a run-down office block, all other extraneous variables that could affect obedience were kept the same.
  • This means it is possible to conclude with some certainty that the fall in obedience in the run-down office block was due to the change in location rather than any other factors.
  • This increases the internal validity of the evidence used to support location as an explanation of obedience and the validity of the explanation.
• Strength of uniform

  • Bickman (1974) carried out a field experiment in New York in which he asked passers-by to complete tasks such as picking up rubbish or lending money to a stranger for Q parking meter. In one condition, when the experimenter was dressed as a security guard, 92% of participants obeyed the request to lend money. In another condition, the experimenter wore normal clothes and 58% obeyed the request.
  • This supports the role of uniform as it shows how important uniform can be in increasing obedience rates.
  • This increases the validity of uniform as a factor that affects obedience.