Obedience: Situational Variables

Proximity (Situational Variables): 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 electroshock plate and obedience dropped to 30%. When the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone, obedience dropped to 20.5%.

Proximity Explanation (Situational Variables): Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. For example, when the teacher and learner were separated, obedience was higher because the teacher couldn’t see the damage they were doing.

Location (Situational Variables): When the research was conducted in a run-down office building instead of Yale, obedience fell to 47.5%.

Location Explanation (Situational Variables): The university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority so participants were more obedient as they perceived the experimenter as legitimate and so obedience was expected.

Uniform (Situational Variables): In the baseline, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat but in the uniform variation, this experimenter was replaced by a member of the public wearing normal clothes and obedience dropped to 20%.

Uniform Explanation (Situational Variables): Uniforms are widely accepted as a symbol of authority and so we accept that we’re supposed to obey them more than someone dressed not in uniform.

Research Support (Situational Variables): Bickman (1974) had three confederates, one dressed in normal clothes, one dressed in a milkman’s outfit, and one dressed in a security guards uniform, ask passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie.

Cross-Cultural Replications (Situational Variables): Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure to study Dutch participants who were instructed to say stressful things in an interview to someone desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed but when the person giving orders wasn’t present, obedience decreased dramatically.

Low Internal Validity (Situational Variables): Participants may have been aware the procedure was faked. Orne and Holland (1968) pointed out that it is more likely in Milgram’s variations because of the extra manipulation of variables, for example when the experimenter is replaced with a member of the public. Even Milgram recognised that this situation made it easy for participants to work out the truth.

The Danger of the Situational Perspective (Situational Variables): David Mandel (1998) argues this explanation offers an excuse for evil behaviour and that it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders.