Obedience: situational variables

• What are the 3 situational variables milgram studied

  • proximity
  • location
  • uniform
• proximity variation - closeness of the teacher


  in the baseline study the teacher could hear the learner but not see them

  • in the proximity variation (teacher and learner in the same room) obedience rate dropped to 40%
  • in the touch proximity variation (teacher forced learners plate on shock plate) obedience dropped to 30%
  • in the remote instruction variation (experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone) obedience dropped to 20.5% and PPS even pretended to give shocks
• proximity variation - explanation 


  decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
• location variation - prestige of setting

  the study was conducted in a run down building rather than at the prestigious Yale university. obedience dropped to 47.5%
• location variation - explanation

  obedience was higher in the university because the setting was legitimate and had authority
• uniform variation - communicates authority 


  in the baseline study the experimenter wore a great lab coat.

  • in one variation he was called away to a phone 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% (LOWEST)
• uniform - explanation


  a uniform is a a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience
• one strength is research support for the influence of situational variables

  Bickman (1974) - confederates dressed in different outfits - jacket and tie, milkman, security guard and issued demands e.g. pick up litter to people on the streets of NYC. people were 2x as likely to obey the security guard than the jacket and tie confederate. this shows that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience
• another strength is cross cultural replication of milligrams research


  Meeus and Rajjmakers (1986) worked with Dutch participants, who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees. they found 90% obedience and obedience fell when proximity decreased (the person giving the orders was not present). this shows that milligrams findings are not limited to american males but are valid accross cultures.
• another strength is cross cultural replication of milligrams research: counterpoint 


  however, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications took place in societies e.g. Spain, Australia, culturally not that different from the US. therefore we cannot conclude that milligrams findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all/most cultures
• one limitation is low internal validity in the studies 


  Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations (compared to the baseline study) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation. in the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, even milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked it out. therefore it’s unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and play acted - they were influenced by demand characteristics.