Situational variables

• AO1 - proximity variation

  • In the baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but not see him.
  • In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
  • In the touch proximity variation, the teacher forced the learner‘s hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate was 30%.
  • In the remote-instruction variation, the experimenter left the room and gave instructions by the phone. The obedience rate was 20.5% and participants often pretended to give shocks.
• AO1 - proximity variation explanation

  • This is because decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
  • E.g. when the teacher and learner were physically separated, the teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient.
• AO1 - location variation

  • Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block.
  • Obedience dropped to 47.5%.
• AO1 - location variation explanation

  This is because the prestigious university gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority.
• AO1 - uniform variation

  • In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat, which was a kind of uniform.
  • In one variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient‘ call at the start of the procedure.
  • His role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes.
  • Obedience fell to 20%.
• AO1 - uniform variation explanation

  • This is because uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority.
  • Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.
• AO3 - ✔️research support for the influence of situational variables


  • Bickman’s confederates dressed in different outfits - jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit, and a security guard’s uniform.
  • They individually issued demands to members of the public.
  • People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the one dressed in the jacket and tie.
  • Supports the view that a situational variable, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
• AO3 - ✔️cross-cultural replication of Milgram’s research.


  • Researchers who worked with Dutch participants, ordered the participants to say stressful things to interviewees.
  • They found that 90% of participants obeyed.
  • Obedience fell when proximity decreased (the person giving orders wasn’t present).
  • Suggests Milgram’s findings about obedience aren’t limited to Americans or men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.
• AO3 - counterpoint; cross-cultural replication of Milgram’s research

  • However, replications of Milgram’s research aren’t very ‘cross-cultural’.
  • Smith and Bond note that most replications in societies are culturally similar to the US (e.g. Spain and Australia).
  • Therefore, we can’t conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location, and uniform apply to people in all or most cultures.
• AO3 - ✖️low internal validity

  • Orne and Holland suggested the variations were more likely to trigger suspicion due to the extra experimental manipulation.
  • In the uniform variation, where the experimenter is replaced by ‘a member of public’, even Milgram recognised this is so forced and participants may have worked out the truth.
  • Therefore, its unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and responded to demand characteristics.