External/Situational factors (Obedience)

• Momentum of Compliance: Start with small requests, target commits to order and is obligated to continue; binding relationship that escalates steadily, after going so far to stop halfway through may sy they were wrong to start in the first place - supported by Milgram; shock generator increases in small increments of 15V, also Rundown Office Block found participants who challenged the experimenter earlier were more fully defiant
• Proximity: Milgram’s variations; same room: 40% obedience, had to force learner’s hand onto shock plate: 30%, remote instructions: 21% (some participants lied about shock level), learner couldn’t be seen or heard: 100%
• Uniform: Milgram variation; researcher did not wear a laboratory coat, legitimacy of perceived authority decreased to 20% obedience; similar results to Bickman (1974); 92% of pedestrians obeyed orders to pick up litter when asked by a security guard, 49% when asked by one in civilian attire
• Location/Status of the Authority: Milgram's research, at Yale University, had a significant drop in obedience; 48%, when moved to a rundown office block in Bridgeport, the university's high status in society significantly contribute to high levels of obedience, also showed obedience drops to 20% when instructions given by an ordinary man, but most participants were willing to let the learner self-administer shocks
• Witnessing Disobedience: Social support for disobedience can increase a participant's likelihood of disobedience, while support for obeying instructions can elicit destructive acts
• Personal Responsibility: Milgram's variation; participants signed contract stating they relinquished Yale University's legal responsibility and acted of their free will; 40% obedience; responsibility reminder, leads to increased self-awareness and autonomy