Obedience

What is the key study supporting explanations for obedience?

Stanley Milgram’s study which led to two explanations for obedience: agentic state and legitimacy of authority.

Milgram’s work on obedience drew from the idea that people will obey an authority figure if specific situational factors are present, even to the point of harming a stranger who has done them no wrong (known as destructive obedience).

Give an overview of Milgram’s study

• A Volunteer sample of American males were recruited (they were naive to the true aim of the study).

• Each participant was asked to act as a teacher in a memory task.

• If the learner made a mistake, the teacher was required to administer an electric shock. The voltage of this shock would increase with each mistake made, from mild to severe.

• In the role of ‘Teacher’, each participant administered electric shocks (which were fake, although the participants did not know this) to the ‘Learner’ for every incorrect answer given

• The experimenter acted as an authority figure and provided ‘prods’ to encourage the participants (Teachers) to continue if they raised any objection to the procedure.

• 65% of the participants went all the way to the fatal 450 volts.

Milgram wanted to explore why so much of the German population obeyed Hitler’s commands to murder over 6 million Jews, as well as 5 million Romany gypsies, homosexuals, Poles and disabled people in the Second World War.

What do the results of Milgram’s study suggest?

• It was estimated that less than 1% would go to the max level of shock

• 65% of participants went to the max level of 450V

• This showed that ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority, even when asked to behave in an inhumane manner.

• It suggests that some of the crimes against humanity may be the outcome of situational rather than dispositional factors

What concept was Milgram’s study based on?

Agency Theory

Milgram’s study was based on the concept of agency theory

Give an evaluative peel for a strength of Milgram’s research (internal validity)

Point:
A strength of Milgram's obedience study is that it has high internal validity.

Evidence:
Milgram standardised the procedure by ensuring every participant experienced the same sequence of events. For example, the learner (a confederate) gave identical incorrect answers at predetermined times, and the experimenter used the same four verbal prompts whenever participants hesitated. Furthermore, Milgram reported that 70% of participants believed the electric shocks were genuine, supported by observations of sweating, trembling and nervous laughter.

Explain:
This high level of control meant that extraneous variables such as differing levels of persuasion (which could have arrived from prompts which weren’t standardised) were minimised, allowing Milgram to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the presence of an authority figure and obedience. As participants believed the situation was real, their behaviour is likely to have reflected genuine obedience rather than acting.

Link:
Therefore, the findings are likely to provide a valid explanation of obedience to authority.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, the artificial laboratory setting may have encouraged demand characteristics.

Evidence:
Participants may have guessed the aim of the study and behaved as they believed was expected because they were aware they were taking part in an experiment.

Explain:
If obedience resulted from participants responding to experimental cues rather than genuine authority, the findings may not accurately reflect obedience in everyday situations.

Link:
Consequently, the study's internal validity may not be as high as Milgram claimed.

Give an evaluative peel for a strength of Milgram’s research Replicability/ reliability)

Point:
Another strength of Milgram's study is that it demonstrates good reliability.

Evidence:
The procedure was highly standardised, meaning it can be replicated precisely. Similar levels of obedience have also been found in later replications and televised recreations conducted in different countries, with obedience rates remaining close to Milgram's original finding of approximately 65% (around 50–65% in similar recreations).

Explain:
Obtaining consistent findings across repeated investigations suggests that obedience to authority is a reliable phenomenon rather than a result of chance. The standardised procedure increases confidence that similar results would be obtained if the study were repeated.

Link:
This supports the reliability and scientific credibility of Milgram's research.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, consistency does not necessarily mean the findings are valid.

Evidence:
Many replications have still been conducted in laboratory settings using similar artificial procedures.

Explain:
As a result, the studies may consistently measure behaviour within an artificial environment rather than obedience in real-life situations. A study can be reliable but still lack ecological validity.

Link:
Therefore, although Milgram's findings are reliable, their real-world application may still be limited.

Give an evaluative peel for a limitation of Milgram’s research (ethics)

Point:
A major criticism of Milgram's study is that it breached several ethical guidelines.

Evidence:
Participants could not give informed consent because they were deceived about the true aim of the study, believing it was a memory experiment. They also believed the shocks were real, causing significant psychological distress, with some participants experiencing seizures. Although participants technically had the right to withdraw, the experimenter's repeated verbal prompts made withdrawing difficult.

Explain:
These ethical issues may have caused lasting emotional harm and mean the study would not meet modern ethical standards. This raises questions about whether the scientific knowledge gained justified the distress experienced by participants.

Link:
Therefore, Milgram's research has been criticised as ethically unacceptable.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, Milgram took several steps to minimise long-term harm.

Evidence:
Participants were fully debriefed, retrospective consent was obtained, and follow-up interviews indicated that the vast majority reported being glad to have taken part and showed no evidence of long-term psychological damage.

Explain:
This suggests that although participants experienced temporary distress, the harm was not permanent, and ethical safeguards after the study reduced its negative impact.

Link:
Consequently, the ethical criticisms may be less damaging than initially suggested.

Give an evaluative peel for a limitation of Milgram’s research (ecological validity/ population validity)

Point:
A limitation of Milgram's study is that it has low population and ecological validity.

Evidence:
The sample consisted entirely of American white males who volunteered to participate, making it an unrepresentative volunteer sample. In addition, the highly controlled laboratory environment is unlike situations in which people typically obey authority in everyday life.

Explain:
As the participants were not representative of women, people from different cultures or individuals who do not volunteer for research, the findings may not generalise to the wider population. Similarly, obedience displayed in a laboratory may differ from obedience shown in real-world situations where consequences are more meaningful.

Link:
Therefore, the generalisability of Milgram's findings is limited.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, Milgram's findings have been supported by evidence from other countries.

Evidence:
Replications and recreations in different cultures have produced broadly similar levels of obedience, suggesting that obedience to authority is not unique to American men.

Explain:
This indicates that the tendency to obey authority figures may be a universal feature of human behaviour, reducing concerns about population validity.

Link:
Therefore, despite the limitations of the original sample, Milgram's conclusions may still apply more widely than critics suggest.

What are the 2 main factors affecting obedience?

• Legitimacy of the authority figure

• Agentic state/ shift

What is the legitimacy of authority?

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people whom we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.

Legitimacy can be identified by location or uniform

What is a study which supports legitimacy?

Research by Bickman (1974) showed that:

• people were more likely to obey a confederate dressed as a security guard than when the confederate was dressed as a milkman or in plain clothes.

• the plain clothes condition resulted in the lowest levels of obedience

• Hence, a uniform confers authority, even when it is not a police uniform.

What is Agentic state?

Includes the terms: autonomous state, agentic shift and binding factors.

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.

What is an autonomous state?

The opposite of an agentic state is being in an autonomous state.

When a person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift.

What are binding factors?

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling.

Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim (‘he was foolish to volunteer’) or denying the damage they were doing to the victims.

Evaluative peel strength of agentic state (supporting evidence)

Point

A strength of the Agentic State explanation is that it is supported by research evidence from Milgram's obedience studies.

Evidence

In Milgram's original study, many participants protested, questioned the experimenter and showed signs of anxiety before continuing to administer the shocks. When participants asked who was responsible for any harm caused, the experimenter replied, "I am responsible." Many participants then continued administering shocks.

Explain

This suggests that participants entered an agentic state, where they saw themselves as acting on behalf of an authority figure rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions. Milgram's findings therefore provide empirical support for the claim that people obey because responsibility is transferred to an authority figure.

Link

This increases the validity of the Agentic State explanation as an account of why people obey authority.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, Milgram's findings alone cannot conclusively prove that participants genuinely entered an agentic state.

Evidence:
Participants' feelings of reduced responsibility were inferred from their behaviour and comments rather than directly measured.

Explain:
It is possible that participants continued for alternative reasons, such as wanting to appear cooperative or believing the experimenter knew the shocks were harmless.

Link:
Therefore, although the findings support Agentic State, they do not provide definitive evidence that it is the underlying cause of obedience.

Evaluative peel strength of agentic state + Legitimacy of Authority (not complete)

Point

A limitation of the Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority explanations is that they cannot explain why some people resist authority.

Evidence

Rank and Jacobson (1977) asked nurses to administer an unauthorised drug dosage over the telephone from an unknown doctor. Unlike Milgram's findings, 21 out of 22 nurses refused to obey the instruction.

Explain

If obedience simply occurred because authority figures transfer responsibility or possess legitimate power, most of the nurses should have obeyed. Instead, the findings suggest that factors such as professional ethics, training and individual differences also influence obedience.

Link

This indicates that Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority provide only a partial explanation of obedient behaviour.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, the authority figure in Rank and Jacobson's study lacked legitimacy.

Evidence:
The doctor was unknown, gave instructions over the telephone and requested a dosage that violated hospital regulations.

Explain:
This means the nurses may not have viewed the doctor as a legitimate authority figure, so the findings may actually support Legitimacy of Authority rather than contradict it.

Link:
Therefore, the study does not completely undermine Milgram's explanations.

Evaluative peel strength of authority explanation (cultural differences)

Point

A strength of the Legitimacy of Authority explanation is that it helps explain cultural differences in obedience.

Evidence

Research shows that obedience tends to be higher in collectivist cultures, where respect for authority and social hierarchy is strongly emphasised, than in individualist cultures, which value independence and personal autonomy.

Explain

This suggests that legitimacy is socially constructed. In societies where authority figures are viewed as more legitimate, people are more likely to obey them. Therefore, cultural differences in attitudes towards authority influence levels of obedience.

Link

This supports Legitimacy of Authority as an explanation because it accounts for variations in obedience across different societies.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, culture cannot fully explain obedience

Evidence:
There is considerable variation in obedience within cultures, meaning not everyone responds to authority in the same way.

Explain:
Individual differences, personality and situational factors also influence obedience, meaning culture is only one contributing factor.

Link:
Therefore, Legitimacy of Authority alone cannot provide a complete explanation of obedient behaviour.

Evaluative peel for strength of Agentic state and Legitimacy of Authority

Point

A major strength of the Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority explanations is that they have important real-world applications.

Evidence

These explanations have been used to understand atrocities such as the Holocaust, where many individuals claimed they were "just following orders" from superior officers.

Explain

The Agentic State explanation suggests that individuals displaced responsibility onto authority figures, while Legitimacy of Authority explains why they accepted those orders as valid. Understanding these psychological processes has influenced the training of military personnel, police officers and healthcare professionals by emphasising personal responsibility and encouraging people to question illegitimate authority.

Link

Therefore, these explanations have significant practical value because they help reduce blind obedience in modern society.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, these explanations may oversimplify the causes of historical atrocities.

Evidence:
Many historians argue that ideological beliefs, prejudice, conformity and personal motivation also contributed to events such as the Holocaust.

Explain:
This suggests that obedience alone cannot fully account for such complex behaviour, meaning Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority provide only one part of the explanation.

Link:
Consequently, while these theories have useful applications, they should be considered alongside other psychological explanations.

What are the 3 situational variables which Milgram’s study highlighted and how did they come about?

• Proximity

• Location (part of legitimacy)

• Uniform (part of legitimacy)

Milgram carried out a large number of variations in order to consider the situational variables that might lead to more or less obedience.

Explain the proximity variations and what they did to the obedience rate.

• It refers to how close to/ far away someone or something is.

In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the Learner but not see him.

• However, in the proximity variation, the Teacher and Learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% in the original study to 40%.

• In the remote instruction variation, the Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone. Obedience reduced to 20.5 %. The participants also frequently pretended to give the shock.

Explain why decreasing proximity leads to decreases in obedience

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. E.g when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated (as in the baseline study), the Teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so they were more obedient.

Explain the location variations and what they did to the obedience rate.

Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Yale University setting of the baseline study. In this location, obedience fell to 47.5 %.

Explain why a less prestigious location leads to decreases in obedience

The prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they believed that the experimenter shared this same legitimacy. However, obedience was still quite high in the office block because the participants perceived the ‘scientific’ nature of the procedure.

Explain the uniform variations and what they did to the obedience rate.

In the baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform). In one variation, the experimenter was called away because of a telephone call at the start of the procedure. The role of the experimenter was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (a confederate). in everyday clothes rather than a lb coat. The obedience rate dropped to 20%.

Explain no uniform lead to decreases in obedience

Uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (i.e it is granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.

Evaluative peel (strength)

Another strength of situational variables is that they are supported by cross-cultural research.

Evidence

Miranda et al. (1981) replicated Milgram's procedure in Spain using male and female participants. They found an obedience rate of over 90%, despite conducting the research in a different country. Similar findings have also been reported in studies from countries such as Australia, Germany and Jordan.

Explain

Obtaining similar levels of obedience across different cultures suggests that situational factors influencing obedience are not unique to American society. This increases confidence that proximity, location and uniform affect obedience across a range of cultural contexts.

Link

Therefore, situational variables appear to be a robust explanation of obedience.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, obedience rates still vary between cultures.

Evidence:
Smith and Bond (1998) found that collectivist cultures often report higher obedience than individualist cultures.

Explain:
This suggests that cultural norms and values also influence obedience, meaning situational variables alone cannot fully explain why people obey authority.

Link:
Consequently, obedience is likely to result from both situational and cultural influences.

Evaluative peel (strength)

Point

Another strength of situational variables is that they are supported by cross-cultural research.

Evidence

Miranda et al. (1981) replicated Milgram's procedure in Spain using male and female participants. They found an obedience rate of over 90%, despite conducting the research in a different country. Similar findings have also been reported in studies from countries such as Australia, Germany and Jordan.

Explain

Obtaining similar levels of obedience across different cultures suggests that situational factors influencing obedience are not unique to American society. This increases confidence that proximity, location and uniform affect obedience across a range of cultural contexts.

Link

Therefore, situational variables appear to be a robust explanation of obedience.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, obedience rates still vary between cultures.

Evidence:
Smith and Bond (1998) found that collectivist cultures often report higher obedience than individualist cultures.

Explain:
This suggests that cultural norms and values also influence obedience, meaning situational variables alone cannot fully explain why people obey authority.

Link:
Consequently, obedience is likely to result from both situational and cultural influences.

Evaluative peel (limitation)

Point

A limitation of Milgram's situational variables research is that participants may have displayed demand characteristics.

Evidence

Because Milgram's variations were conducted in highly controlled laboratory settings, participants may have guessed the purpose of the study and altered their behaviour accordingly.

Explain

If participants recognised that the research was investigating obedience, they may have obeyed because they believed this was what the experimenter expected. This would reduce the internal validity of the findings because obedience may not have resulted solely from changes in proximity, location or uniform.

Link

Therefore, the influence of situational variables may have been overestimated.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, Milgram found evidence suggesting participants genuinely believed the situation was real.

Evidence:
Many participants displayed visible signs of stress, including trembling, sweating and nervous laughter, indicating that they believed they were administering real electric shocks

Explain:
These emotional reactions suggest that participants were responding naturally rather than simply acting in accordance with perceived expectations.

Link:
Therefore, demand characteristics may not have had a substantial impact on the findings.

Evaluative peel (limitation)

Point

A further strength is that Milgram's variations support the view that obedience is largely determined by situational factors rather than personality.

Evidence

Changing only one situational variable at a time produced large changes in obedience. For example, obedience decreased when the authority figure became less physically close, when the location became less prestigious and when the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary member of the public rather than someone wearing a laboratory coat.

Explain

As all other aspects of the procedure remained constant, the differences in obedience can be attributed to the situational variable that was manipulated. This demonstrates a clear cause-and-effect relationship between characteristics of the situation and obedience.

Link

Therefore, Milgram's research provides strong evidence that obedience is heavily influenced by external situational factors.

Counter-PEEL

Point:
However, situational variables cannot explain why some individuals resisted authority despite being in exactly the same situation.

Evidence:
In Milgram's original study, 35% of participants refused to administer the maximum 450-volt shock, even though they experienced the same proximity, location and authority conditions.

Explain:
This suggests that dispositional factors, such as personality or moral values, may also influence obedience alongside situational variables.

Link:
Therefore, situational explanations provide an important but incomplete account of obedient behaviour.

What are dispositional factors?

They describe a person’s disposition or personality.

What did Adorno propose?

He proposed that the concept of the authoritarian personality as an explanation of dispositional obedience.

Adorno’s theory claims that personality develops as a result of childhood experiences.

• The theory takes the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate

• Nurture includes any external influences on personality/ behaviour, e.g upbringing, learning, environment.

What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?

An explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality (i.e their disposition). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations.

The Authoritarian Personality.

What is the authoritarian personality

Adorno et al argued that people with an Authoritarian Personality (AP) show:

• extreme respect for (and are submissive to) authority.

• such people view society as ‘weaker’ than it once was, so believe we need strong leaders to enforce traditional values such as love of country and family.

• Disrespectful to those whom they believe are below them - due to their strong belief in hierarchy.

Both of these characteristics make people with an AP more likely to obey orders from a source of authority.

What did Adorno devise to measure Authoritarian personality

A questionnaire known as the F-scale.

• F on the scale denotes a rating of fascism