obedience: situational variables

• explanations for obedience based on situational variables

  • proximity: in milgram's original study, the teacher + learner were in the adjoining rooms. the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. in the proximity variation, teacher + learner were in the same room + obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%. in the touch proximity variation, the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. the obedience rate dropped to 30%.
• explanations for obedience based on situational variables

  • in the 'remote-instruction' proximity variation, the experimenter left the room + gave instructions by telephone. the obedience rate dropped again to 20.5%. the pp's also frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones when they were ordered to
• explanations for obedience based on situational variables

  • location: the location of the obedience study was a run-down building rather than the prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted (yale uni)

  obedience fell to 47.5%. this indicates that the experimenter had less authority in this setting
• explanations for obedience based on situational variables

  • uniform: in the original baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of this authority. in one variation the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call right at the start of the procedure. the role of the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat.
• explanations for obedience based on situational variables

  • uniform: the obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations. this suggests that uniform does act as a strong visual authority symbol + a cue to behave in an obedient manner
• limitation : lacked internal validity


  Orne + Holland (1968) suggest pp's in milgram's variations were more likely to realise the procedure was faked 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 pp's may have worked it out. so it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the pp's saw the deception and 'play acted'
• limitation


  smith + bond (1998) note that most replications have taken place in western societies, culturally not that different from the usa. it is premature to conclude that milgram's findings about proximity, location + uniform apply to people everywhere
• strength - has control of variables

  milgram systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience. other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 pp's. this control gives us more certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the variable manipulated (eg location), showing cause + effect relationships
• limitation - provides an 'obedience alibi'


  milgram's findings are an 'excuse' for obedience - suggesting that it is the situation not the person who is responsible. mandel (1998) claims this is offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that the nazis simply obeyed orders + were victims of situational factors beyond their control. milgram's situational perspective is dangerous because it ignores the roles that discrimination, racism + prejudice played in the holocaust