Situational Variables

Proximity

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to.

Also refers to the physical closeness of the Teacher to the Learner in Milgram’s studies

Location

The place where an order is given.

Status or prestige associated with the location influences obedience

Uniform

People in authority positions often have a specific outfit symbolic of their authority.

Their outfits indicate that they are entitled to expect our obedience

Situational variable

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour.

Obedience rate when location changed to run-down office

47.5%

Obedience rate when Teacher and Learner were in the same room

40%

Obedience rate when Teacher forced the Learner’s hand onto the shock plate

30%

Obedience rate when Experimenter gave orders over the phone

20.5%

Obedience rate when the Experimenter was dressed as a member of the public

20%

Bickman 1974

Field experiment

Confederates had 3 different uniforms:

1. Milkman

2. Security guard

3. Jacket and tie

3 different situations:

1. Lending a coin for parking meter

2. Picking up litter

3. Moving to other side of bus stop.

Twice as likely to obey the confederate as a security guard than the confederate as a milkman or in a jacket and tie.

Supports the idea of situational variables and more heavily on the uniform

Meeus and Raajimakers 1986

Used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch people

Participants were ordered to say stressful things to interviewees (who were confederates) who were desperate for a job.

Found that 90% obeyed.

Obedience decreased when the person giving the orders was not present

Suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not limited to American men, but are valid across cultures and apply to women too.

Contradiction to Meeus and Raajimakers
Smith and Bond 1986

Replications of Milgram’s research are not very cross-cultural

Smith and Bond identified 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan. Both countries are culturally different from the US but other countries that were involved (Spain, Scotland, Australia) are culturally similar to the US.

May not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings apply to people in all or most cultures

Demand characteristics

Perry 2013, 2020

The participants’ behaviours may not reflect obedience to authority.

Evidence from Perry 2013 suggests that half of the participants believed the shocks were real and most of them were disobedient.

In further articles, Perry 2020 cited a testimony from one of Milgram’s assistants who reported that participants classified as having ‘not fully believed’ gave more shocks than those who ‘fully believed’

This suggests that participants’ behaviour was a result of ‘play-acting’ meaning Milgram wasn’t really measuring obedience

Danger of the situational perspective

Mandel 1998

Milgram’s findings support a situational explanation of obedience

This perspective was criticised by Mandel who argues that it offers and alibi for their behaviour.

In his view it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders.

Milgram’s explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors and implies that the Nazis were victims of situational factors that they couldn’t control.