obedience: situational variables

• what was another limitation for his variations ?

  Orne and Holland said the extra manipulation of variables allowed participants to work out the truth. (member of the public). So we do not know if findings are genuine or only  due to them seeing through deception and responding to demand characteristics 
• what were the evaluation for the proximity variation ?

  Meeus and raaijmakers conducted this study on Dutch participants. They were ordered to say stressful things during an interview desperate for a job. 90% agreed. When person giving order not present, obedience decreased dramatically. shows it applies not just to American men.however Smith and Bond found only two replications in India and Jordan between 1968 and 1985, which are very different to the US. This means it cannot be applied to every culture.
• what were the strengths of the uniform variation?

  Bickmans study involved people dressing up as a milkman,assistant and in a jacket and tie. They told members of the public to perform tasks. People were more likely to obey the assistant than the man in a jacket and tie.Supports the view that uniform has a powerful effect on obedience.
• what were the results of his uniform variation ?

  he left the room due to a phone call and the experiment was carried on by a member of the public. Obedience dropped to 20% as uniform gives someone authority and we expect that they are entitled to authority.
• what were the results of his proximity variation?

  Now they were in the same room the obedience level dropped from 65% to 40%. This shows that the decreased proximity allows people to distance themselves from the consequences.
• what were the results of milgrams location variation ?

   a run down office block and obedience dropped to 47.5%. The uni had given the experiment legitimacy and authority but now that had decreased. Obedience was still high as there was still a scientific nature.