STUDIES: destructive obedience & authority

continuum of social influence.

Term	Definition
Yielding to influence	Behaviour shaped by social pressure (obedience, compliance, conformity).
Resisting influence	Behaviour resisting pressure (independence, assertiveness, defiance).
Obedience (core definition)	Acting in accordance with a direct order or command from authority; behaviour change caused by commands.

authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950).

Concept	Definition / Features
Authoritarian personality	Personality type characterised by obedience to authority, submission to superiors, aggression toward subordinates, and conventional attitudes.
Relevance to obedience	Used to explain why some individuals obey destructive authority more readily.
Criticism	Overemphasis on personality; limited explanation for widespread obedience (e.g., Holocaust).

banality of evil (Arendt, 1965).

Term	Explanation
Banality of evil	Idea that individuals who commit horrific acts may be ordinary, non-sadistic people following orders.
Eichmann example	Eichmann as “terrifyingly normal,” not a fanatic — obedience, not pathology.
Implication	Obedience is widespread; ordinary individuals can carry out harm under authority.

ideology as a driver of destructive obedience.

Concept	Explanation
Ideology	System of shared beliefs that justifies authority, group action, or violence.
Examples	Nazi ideology; political extremism; scientific justification in Milgram.
Function	Provides moral framework making harmful behaviour seem acceptable.

ethical critiques of milgram (Baumrind, 1964)

Criticism	Explanation
Emotional harm	Participants showed high stress (sweating, trembling).
Threat to self-image	Participants who obeyed may discover distressing truths about themselves.
Humiliating debrief	Being told they were deceived could reduce self-esteem.
Long-term effects	Possible lasting mistrust of authority or altered self-concept.

milgram’s ethical rebuttal.

Response	Explanation
Careful debriefing	Participants fully informed afterward.
Follow-up survey results	84% glad they took part; 1% regretted; 74% learned something important.
Psychiatric interviews	No long-term harm observed.
APA response	Procedure acceptable based on participant evaluations.
Milgram’s stance	“Participants must be the ultimate judges of acceptability.”

Agentic State (Milgram, 1974).

Term	Definition
Agentic state	A psychological state where individuals see themselves as agents executing another person’s wishes, not acting autonomously.
Opposite state	Autonomy — acting based on one’s own values.
Key quote	“People do what they are told… as long as they perceive the command comes from a legitimate authority.”
Implication	Obedience arises from shifting responsibility to authority (“I was just following orders”).

Haslam & Reicher (2012) Reinterpretation.

Term	Explanation
Critique of agentic state	People do not blindly obey; they actively identify with authority’s goals.
SIT reinterpretation	Obedience arises when people identify with the experimenter’s scientific purpose, not when they relinquish agency.
Obedience as engaged followership	Participants obey because they believe in the legitimacy or value of the cause (“science must advance”).
Implication	Obedience is active, not passive; social identity predicts compliance.

Terminology Definitions.

Term	Definition
Obedience	Behaviour change due to direct command.
Compliance	Behaviour change due to request, not command.
Conformity	Adjusting behaviour to group norms.

Term	Definition
Agentic state	Perceiving oneself as executing authority’s wishes.
Autonomous state	Acting according to personal principles.
Ideology	System of beliefs guiding behaviour.

Term	Definition
Prestige of authority	Higher status → higher obedience.
Proximity	Closer to victim → less obedience.
Institutional context	Setting influences legitimacy of authority.

Milgram’s Experimental Variations.

Variation	Effect on Obedience
Women as subjects	Similar obedience levels to men.
Voice feedback	Lower obedience; hearing protests increases refusal.
Proximity conditions	Closer physical closeness to victim → lower obedience.
Touch-proximity	Lowest obedience (must force learner’s hand on plate).
Institutional context	Lower obedience at less prestigious locations.
Self-selected shock level	Nearly all chose mild shocks — demonstrates destructive obedience only under authority pressure.

milgram prods.

Prod	Meaning
Prod 1	“Please continue.”
Prod 2	“The experiment requires that you continue.”
Prod 3	“It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
Prod 4	“You have no other choice.”

milgram’s obedience studies (1963, 1974).

• milgram’s obedience experiments were directly inspired by the Holocaust, specifically the trial of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann, to understand how ordinary people could commit atrocities under orders.

• aim: to investigate how far ordinary people would obey authority figures, even when asked to harm another person.

• hypothesis: individuals will obey orders from an authority figure, even when the actions conflict with their personal conscience.

• procedure: 40 male participants (“teachers”) instructed to administer electric shocks (15–450 volts) to a “learner” (confederate) for wrong answers. the experimenter (in a lab coat) urged participants to continue.

• results:

  • 65% obeyed fully to 450 volts.

  • all participants continued to at least 300 volts.

  • participants showed visible distress (sweating, trembling, stammering).

• conclusion: ordinary people are capable of extreme obedience under authority pressure. situational factors can override moral judgment.

• exam link: “discuss situational explanations of obedience with reference to milgram’s findings.”

variations of milgram (1974): proximity, location, uniform.

• aim: to test which situational factors influence obedience.

• procedure: changed variables such as proximity to learner, experimenter presence, and setting.

• results:

  • same room (close proximity): 40% obedience.

  • experimenter absent (via phone): 21% obedience.

  • run-down office vs yale: 48% obedience.

  • ordinary person giving orders: 20% obedience.

• conclusion: obedience decreases when authority’s legitimacy or immediacy is reduced.

• exam link: “evaluate the influence of situational variables on obedience.”

hofling et al. (1966) – nurses and obedience to doctors.

• aim: to test obedience in a real-world setting.

• procedure: 22 hospital nurses received a call from a “doctor” telling them to administer 20 mg of astroten (a fake drug, double the safe dose).

• results:

  • 21 out of 22 nurses (95%) began to administer the drug.

  • all nurses said in a post-interview that they would not have done so hypothetically.

• conclusion: obedience generalizes beyond the lab; real-life hierarchical structures increase compliance.

• exam link: “explain how authority structures affect obedience in applied settings.”

bickman (1974) – authority and uniform.

• aim: to test the effect of perceived authority on compliance.

• procedure: confederates dressed as a guard, milkman, or civilian asked passers-by to pick up litter or give a coin for parking.

• results:

  • guard uniform: 76% compliance.

  • milkman: 47%, civilian: 30%.

• conclusion: uniforms serve as cues of legitimate authority, increasing obedience.

• exam link: “describe research showing how authority symbols influence obedience.”

rank & jacobson (1977) – replication of hofling with real drug.

• aim: to test obedience in nurses under more realistic conditions.

• procedure: 18 nurses received a call from a known doctor asking them to administer a drug they knew and had access to.

• results:

  • 2 out of 18 (11%) obeyed.

• conclusion: obedience drops when participants can consult peers or recognize authority’s error. situational realism affects results.

• exam link: “compare laboratory and field evidence on obedience to authority.”

burger (2009) – partial replication of milgram.

• aim: to test whether milgram’s results still apply under modern ethical standards.

• procedure: used same paradigm but stopped shocks at 150 volts (the “point of no return”). included both male and female participants.

• results:

  • 70% continued to 150 volts (comparable to milgram’s trend).

  • no gender difference observed.

• conclusion: obedience remains high even decades later, showing enduring situational influence.

• exam link: “evaluate modern replications of classic obedience studies.”

blass (1999) – meta-analysis of obedience research.

• aim: to examine obedience rates across replications of milgram’s study.

• results:

  • across 9 replications (n = 1,000+), mean obedience = 61%.

  • no significant change over time or by culture.

• conclusion: obedience is a robust and universal phenomenon.

• exam link: “assess the generalizability of milgram’s findings across time and culture.”

zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment (1973).

• aim: to investigate the effects of assigned social roles on behavior.

• procedure: 24 male students randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in a mock prison. guards given uniforms and authority. planned for 2 weeks, stopped after 6 days.

• results:

  • guards became abusive, prisoners showed distress and submission.

  • ⅓ of guards displayed sadistic behavior.

  • 5 prisoners released early due to emotional breakdowns.

• conclusion: situational power and authority roles can produce deindividuation and cruelty.

• exam link: “compare zimbardo’s findings with milgram’s to explain destructive obedience.”

gamson et al. (1982) – rebellion against authority.

• aim: to test obedience in a group setting.

• procedure: participants in groups were asked to produce video statements supporting an unfair company decision.

• results:

  • 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled.

• conclusion: group support reduces obedience — presence of allies encourages resistance.

• exam link: “explain how group support and dissent influence obedience.”

haslam & reicher (2002, 2006) – bbc prison study.

• aim: to revisit zimbardo’s experiment ethically and explore when people resist authority.

• procedure: participants in a mock prison, filmed for tv; roles randomly assigned but conditions allowed self-organization and discussion.

• results:

  • prisoners developed strong social identity and overthrew guards after 6 days.

  • guards failed to unify under authority.

• conclusion: social identification, not blind obedience, determines whether people accept or resist authority.

• exam link: “evaluate modern reinterpretations of zimbardo’s prison findings.”

modern neuroscience crossover – wemmers et al. (2018).

• aim: to identify neural activity associated with obedience and moral conflict.

• procedure: fMRI scans during a simulated obedience task involving harming another person.

• results:

  • activation in anterior cingulate cortex (conflict monitoring) and amygdala correlated with levels of moral distress (r = .62).

• conclusion: obedience involves emotional and cognitive conflict, suggesting dual processes of control and submission.

• exam link: “explain how neuroscience contributes to understanding destructive obedience.”

exam link summary.

• for essays: combine milgram (1963), hofling (1966), zimbardo (1973), and haslam & reicher (2002) to discuss authority, situation, and identity as interacting explanations.

• for mcqs: remember numerical obedience rates (milgram 65%, hofling 95%, burger 70%, gamson 12% obedience) and key moderators (proximity, legitimacy, group pressure).

asch (1951, 1955) – conformity and social pressure.

• aim: to investigate the extent to which people conform to group opinion.

• procedure: participants judged line lengths in groups with confederates giving wrong answers.

• results:

  • 37% conformity rate overall.

  • 75% conformed at least once.

• conclusion: people conform due to normative social influence — desire for acceptance.

• exam link: “describe research on conformity and explain why people conform.”

asch variation (1956): group size and unanimity.

• results:

  • 1 confederate: 3% conformity, 3 confederates: 33%, 15 confederates: no increase.

  • with a dissenting ally: conformity dropped to 5.5%.

  • exam link: “explain how situational factors affect conformity.”

moscovici et al. (1969) – minority influence.

• aim: to test if a consistent minority can influence a majority.

• procedure: groups of six judged color slides (all blue); two confederates consistently said “green.”

• results:

  • consistent minority: 8.4% “green” responses; inconsistent minority: 1.3%.

  • conclusion: consistency increases minority influence.

  • exam link: “discuss the role of consistency in minority influence.”

bond & smith (1996) – meta-analysis of asch paradigm.

• results:

  • collectivist cultures showed higher conformity (r = .45) than individualist (r = .25).

• conclusion: culture moderates conformity.

• exam link: “evaluate cross-cultural differences in conformity.”

cialdini et al. (1975) – the door-in-the-face technique.

• aim: to test a compliance strategy.

• procedure: participants asked to volunteer for 2 years (refusal expected), then for a single day.

• results:

  • compliance rate rose from 17% to 50% after the large-then-small request.

• conclusion: reciprocal concessions increase compliance.

• exam link: “describe and evaluate compliance techniques in social influence.”

cialdini et al. (1978) – lowball technique.

• results: commitment to an initial agreement increases compliance even when conditions worsen. compliance = 53% vs 24% control.

• exam link: “explain how commitment techniques influence compliance.”

baron et al. (1996) – task importance and conformity.

• results: when task importance was high, conformity increased to 51% (vs 35% baseline) under ambiguity.

• conclusion: informational social influence strengthens with perceived importance.

• exam link: “distinguish between normative and informational social influence.”

exam link summary.

• for essays: integrate milgram and asch when discussing social influence mechanisms — obedience and conformity often share cognitive roots.

• for mcqs: recall exact percentages (asch 37%, moscovici 8%, cialdini 50%) and key moderators (group size, unanimity, culture).