O- Situational Variables

• Proximity

  In the baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but couldn't see him. In the proximity variation, the Teacher and Learner were in the same room- the obedience rates dropped from 65% in the original study to 40%.

  In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher had to force the Learner's hand onto an 'electroshock plate' if they refused to place their hand there themselves- obedience dropped to 30%.

  In the remote instruction variation, the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone- obedience dropped to 20.5%.
• Proximity: Explanation

  The decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. When the Teacher and Learner are physically separated (like the baseline study), they are less aware of the harm they are inflicting and are then more obedient.
• Location

  Conducting a variation in a run-down office block, rather than the prestigious Yale University in the baseline study. In the run-down location, obedience fell to 47.5%.
• Location: Explanation

  The prestigious university environment gave the baseline study legitimacy and authority. P's were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy, and that obedience was expected. Though obedience was still high in the run-down setting, this suggests that p's still perceived the scientific nature of the procedure.
• Uniform

  In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat- a symbol of his authority. In one variation, the Experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure, so an 'ordinary member of the public' took up the role (a confederate). Wearing everyday clothes rather than a lab coat- obedience rates dropped to 20% which is the lowest of all situational variations.
• Uniform: Explanation

  Uniforms 'encourage' obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is untitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.
• AO3: Research Support

  A field experiment conducted by Bickman had 3 confederates dress in different outfits: a jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guard's uniform. They then individually stood in the street and asked passers to perform tasks (like picking up litter, handing a coin for the parking meter). People were 2 times more likely to obey the security guard than the person in the suit and tie- supporting that uniform has a powerful influence on obedience.
• AO3: Cross-Cultural Replications

  Meeus and Raaijmakers used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in Dutch p's. They were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) who was desperate for a job. 90% of p's obeyed. They also altered proximity; when the person giving orders wasn't present, obedience decreased dramatically. Suggesting findings aren't limited, but valid across cultures and apply to women.
• AO3: Counterpoint to Cross-Cultural Replications

  However, replications aren't very cross-cultural. Smith and Bond identified only 2 replications between 1868 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan- both countries are culturally different to the US. Whereas other countries involved (Spain, Australia, and Scotland) are culturally similar to the US. They have similar notions about the role of authority- therefore, it may not be appropriate to conclude all Milgram's findings apply universally.
• AO3: Low Internal Validity

  P's may have been aware that the procedure was fake. Orne and Holland make criticisms of the baseline study and point out that it is even more likely in these variations as there is extra manipulation of variables (like when the Experimenter is replaced by a member of public). Milgram recognised that the situation was intended and some p's may have worked out the aims. Therefore in all Milgram's studies, it is unclear whether findings are genuinely due to obedience, or whether p's saw through deception and responded with demand characteristics.
• AO3: Danger of the Situational Perspective

  This perspective has been criticised by Mandel, arguing that it offers an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour. He believes it is offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milgram's explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors (like personality), implying Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control.