Obedience: Situational variables

• Location is where the order is issued. Milgram conducted a variation in a run down office rather than a university setting and the obedience dropped to 47.5%. This is because the university gave legitimacy and authority therefore the pps were more obedient as they perceived that the experimenter shared the legitimacy so the obedience was expected. However the obedience was still high as the pps perceived a scientific nature of the procedure.
• Strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on influence. Field experiment in NYC Bickman 1974 had three conderates dressed in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkman outfit, and security guard clothing. They asked passers-by to pick up litter or hand a coin over for the parking metre. People were twice as likely to obey the security guard compared to the person in a jacket and tie. This supports the view that situational variables such as uniform has a powerful effect on obedience
• Proximity In the baseline study the teacher and learner were in separate rooms but in the new varied experiment they were in the same room. Due to this obedience levels dropped from 65% to 40%. In touch proximity the teacher forced the learners hand onto the electric shock plate 30%. In remote instruction experimenters left the room and gave the instructions to the teacher via telephone, obedience levels dropped to 20.5%. Pps also frequently pretended to give shocks. decreased proximity means that the people are able to psychologically distance themselves from any consequences.
• Uniform

  In baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In one variation experimenter called away due to an inconvenient telephone call at the start and in another the experimenter was played by someone who was a member of the public who was wearing casual clothing. Obedience levels dropped to 20%. This is because uniforms are seen as a symbol of authority which therefore encourages obedience and has more respect, but someone is casual clothing does not encourage obedience as they have less authority and respect. 
• Limitation pps procedure was faked. Orne and Holland 1968 made criticism of Milgram’s baseline study and they pointed out that it’s even more likely; of the extra manipulation to variables such as the variation where the experimenter is replaced with a member of the public. Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some of his pps may well have worked out the truth. Therefore in all of Milgram's studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or that they have seen through the deceptions and responded to demand characteristics.
• Strength findings have been replicated across different cultures. Meeus and Raaijmakers 1968 used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's study obedience in Dutch people. The pps were ordered to say stressful things in a job interview to someone desperate for a job. 90% of the pps obeyed. replicated Milgram's findings to proximity. When the person giving instructions was not present, obedience decreased dramatically. This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men but are valid across all cultures and women.
• However, replications of Milgram’s study are not very ‘cross-culture’. Smith and Bond 1998 identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan which are both culturally different to the US. Whereas places such as Spain, Australia, and Scotland are culturally similar to the US. Therefore it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings apply to most people in all cultures.