Situational Influence

Situational influence is the name given to the impact of environmental factors on obedience. Many social psychologists believe that our behaviour (specifically obedience levels) is determined by situational influences rather than dispositional influences.

A key motive behind exploring the impact of situational influence is to see the extent of external and environmental factors, such as social context, pressure and authority figures, and how those factors affect the rate at which individuals obey.

This could explain why so many people, often in certain social contexts, follow orders even if it means causing harm to others. After all, many thousands of German soldiers readily followed orders to harm and kill people during the Holocaust. In Milgram's shock experiment (1964), 65 percent of participants administered high-voltage shocks to people when ordered to do so.

Why did Nazi soldiers and Milgram’s participants follow such orders? Was it because of the social contexts they were in?

Many studies have been conducted to see whether environmental factors affect obedience levels. These studies include variation studies of Milgram’s original shock experiment and cross-cultural studies that measure whether Milgram’s findings are applicable universally.

Variation studies into situational influences in psychology

Since Milgram’s original shock experiment (1964), variations of his study were carried out where researchers manipulated independent variables to measure situational influence on obedience.

Proximity of the authority figure

Original study (1964):

• The authority figure was in the same room as the participant.

• Obedience levels were high. 65 percent of participants administered high voltage shocks.

Uniform of the authority figure

Original study (1964):

• The authority figure wore a white laboratory coat.

Variation study:

• The authority figure wore everyday clothes.

• Obedience levels decreased to 20 percent.

• Individuals are therefore more likely to obey authority figures with official uniforms or clothing, as it gives them status.

The proximity of the learner (person receiving the shocks) to the participant

The original study (1964):

• The learner was in a separate room from the participant. Participants could not see the learner in pain but could hear them.

Variation study:

• The learner and the participant were placed in the same room when the shocks were administered.

• Obedience levels decreased to 40 percent.

• Result: Individuals are more likely to obey if they cannot see the result of their actions, namely the learner showing signs of pain or discomfort.

Proximity from the learner to the participant: second variation

The original study (1964):

• The learner was in a separate room from the participant.

Variation study:

• The participant was forced to put the learner’s hand directly onto the shock plate.

• Obedience levels decreased to 30 percent.

• Result: Individuals are less likely to obey if they are in close proximity to the person they are harming, and if they have physical, direct involvement in the harm.

Presence of other participants

The original study (1964):

• Only one participant administered the shocks.

Variation study:

• Two confederates (individuals who knew about the experiment but were pretending to be participants) were present with the genuine participant. They refused to administer shocks higher than 150V.

• Obedience levels decreased to 10 percent.

• Result: Individuals are less likely to obey if they are in the presence of someone who is expressly disobedient.

Location of the study

The original study (1964):

• The study was held on the campus of the prestigious and well-known Yale University in the United States.

Variation study:

• The study was conducted in a city office building that was not in good condition.

• Obedience levels decreased to 47.5 percent.

• Result: Individuals are more likely to obey if the location has high status or credibility.

The variation studies showed that obedience levels can vary depending on situational influences. It was concluded that the proximity of the authority figure and the presence of other disobedient individuals had the highest impact on obedience.

A credible location can make us see authority figures as more trustworthy, leading to higher obedience levels. pixabay

Bickman (1974) study of the situational influence on obedience levels

Bickman tested the impact of clothing and uniform through a field experiment in New York City. Members of the general public were given instructions to either pick up a bag, give someone money, or stand to the side of a bus stop where doing so was prohibited. These instructions were given by three men. Their dress and resultant obedience rates are stated below.

• Security guard: 76 % obedience rate.

• Milkman: 47 & obedience rate.

• Ordinary pedestrian: 30 % obedience rate.

This suggests that uniform and clothing impact how likely someone is to obey. This finding supports Milgram’s variation study that tested the uniform of the authority figure.

Cross-cultural variations as situational influences

For years after Milgram’s shock experiment, research was carried out into cultural variations as situational influences. This means that cross-cultural studies were carried out to test whether the results of Milgram’s experiment varied across different cultures. As infamous as the results of Milgram’s shock experiment were, the experiment was only carried out on American men. American culture is significantly different from other cultures due to varying perspectives on obedience, respect for authority and individualism.

Psychologist Thomas Blass identified replications of Milgram’s experiment in several countries outside of North America. Not all replications of Milgram’s experiment had the same experimental conditions. For example, in the Jordanian experiment, participants were matched by sex. There was also a control group that gave participants the choice to administer electric shocks. In the Dutch experiment, participants were instructed to insult another individual rather than give them electric shocks.

Below are the results of the cross-cultural replications.

The results of the replications show that obedience can vary across cultures, suggesting that cultural variations can act as situational influences on obedience.

Evaluation of situational influence as an explanation for obedience

The explanation of situational influence and the various studies have been subjected to considerable feedback.

Positives

• Milgram’s original experiment has a lot of research support, therefore increasing the validity of his findings.

• Situational influences appear to be good explanations for obedience as high levels of obedience were found cross-culturally. This suggests that environmental factors can highly affect how likely we are to obey orders.

• Milgram’s variation studies show how seemingly ‘small’ adjustments to the environment can affect our obedience, eg clothing.

Negatives

• In Milgram’s original experiment, 35 percent of the participants did not obey. This suggests situational influences may not fully explain obedience.

• Milgram’s study, the variation studies and cross-cultural studies do not take into account dispositional (personality) influences that may affect obedience. This may be especially relevant for studies that showed low obedience levels, as found in Australian female students. Adorno (1950) studied how personality can affect obedience.

• Milgram’s study and the variation studies lack ecological validity as they were conducted in artificial settings.

• The majority of the cross-cultural studies were still conducted in Western settings, so the findings may not truly be cross-cultural.