Situational Factors

• Proximity

  When the teacher was forced to see the learner in person—witnessing his discomfort firsthand—the obedience rate dropped from the original 65% to around 40%, indicating that direct exposure to another’s suffering substantially reduces compliance.
• Location

  In a variation where the experiment was conducted in a less prestigious, non-academic setting rather than a respected laboratory, obedience rates fell significantly, in one case dropping to approximately 21%, which demonstrates that the legitimacy of the environment plays a crucial role in facilitating obedience.
• Uniformity and Deindividuation (Bushman, 1988):


  Bushman (1988) found that when individuals are made to wear identical uniforms and are embedded in a cohesive group, they experience deindividuation, which can amplify aggressive or obedient behaviours. In his experiment, participants in uniform conditions delivered noise blasts that were roughly 30% more intense than those in non-uniform conditions, indicating that strong group uniformity can intensify responses by reducing personal accountability.
• Positive Evaluation - Systematic Alteration of Variables:

  Milgram’s design involved systematically altering one variable at a time (e.g. proximity of the learner, location, and presence of dissent) to isolate their effects on obedience. This careful manipulation supports the conclusion that situational factors significantly influence behaviour. However, the focus on one variable in isolation can be criticised for oversimplifying the complex interplay of factors present in real-life settings.
• Support from variations

  • Variations in the procedure—for example, reducing obedience when the learner was in the same room (dropping from around 65% to 40%) or in less prestigious settings (as low as 21%)—provide strong empirical support for the situational explanation. These findings reinforce the notion that environmental context and direct exposure to distress can alter the degree of obedience, as further demonstrated by related studies (e.g. Bushman, 1988 on deindividuation)
• Lack of Internal Validity:

  Despite the systematic approach, critics argue that certain aspects of the design (such as the use of pre-recorded responses and repeated verbal prods) may have introduced confounding factors. These elements could influence participant behaviour beyond the intended manipulation, raising questions about the internal validity of the findings.
• Ethnocentrism:

  A significant limitation is the ethnocentric nature of Milgram's samples, which comprised mainly male participants from similar cultural backgrounds - Spain, Australia etc. This narrow sampling reduces the generalisability of the findings to diverse populations and different cultural contexts, thereby limiting the applicability of the situational factors explanation across societies.