Obedience : situational variables

• The three situational variables

  1. Proximity
  2. Location
  3. Uniform
• Proximity - Closeness of teacher and learner

  In the proximity variation, the teacher and learner were in the same room and obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. In the touch proximity variation, the teacher forced the learner's hand onto the shock plate and obedience rate was 30%. In the remote instruction variation, the experimenter gave instructions by telephone and the obedience rate was 21% and participants pretended to give shocks.

  Explanation - decreased proximity allowed people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
• Location - prestige of setting

  Te study was conducted in a run down building rater than at the prestigious Yale university. Obedience dropped to 48%.

  Explanation - obedience was higher in the university as the setting was legitimate and had authority
• Uniform - communicates authority

  In the baseline procedure, the experimenter wore a white lab coat. In one variation, he was called away by a 'inconvenient' phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of the variations.

  Explanation - a uniform is a strong symbol of legitamate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.
• Evaluation

  One strength is research support for the influence of situational variables. Bickman's confederates dressed in different outfits (suit, milkman, security guard) and issued demands to people on the streets of new york city. People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'suit' confederate. This shows that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.
• Evaluation

  One limitation is low internal validity in the studies. Orne and Holland suggested the variations 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 is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and play acted (demand characteristics)
• Evaluation

  One limitation is the danger of the situational perspective. Milgram's conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience. Mandel argues that this offers an excuse for genocide., Situational variables hugely oversimplify the causes of the holocaust and are offensive to survivors. This permits others to excuse destructive behaviour in terms of 'i was just obeying orders'.