Social Influence: Obedience

What you'll learn

This revision guide covers everything you need to know about obedience for your Edexcel GCSE Psychology exam. You'll explore Milgram's groundbreaking research, understand the factors that affect obedience levels, and learn how to evaluate research through ethical considerations. This topic links directly to real-world situations where people follow orders from authority figures.

Key terms and definitions

Obedience — A form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from a person perceived to be in a position of authority.

Agency theory — An explanation of obedience proposing that people operate in either an autonomous state (taking personal responsibility) or an agentic state (seeing themselves as agents of authority, shifting responsibility to the authority figure).

Legitimacy of authority — The extent to which an authority figure is perceived as having the right to give orders and expect obedience based on their position in a social hierarchy.

Gradual commitment — The process where people agree to small initial requests and then find it difficult to refuse increasingly larger demands (also known as the "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon in obedience research).

Buffers — Factors that protect individuals from seeing the full impact of their destructive actions, making it easier to continue obeying harmful orders.

Authoritarian personality — A dispositional explanation suggesting certain individuals are more likely to obey due to personality characteristics including rigid beliefs, conventional values, and submissiveness to authority.

Ethical issues — Concerns about the treatment and rights of research participants, including protection from harm, deception, informed consent, and the right to withdraw.

Proximity — The physical or psychological distance between the participant and either the authority figure or the victim of their actions.

Core concepts

Milgram's research into obedience (1963)

Stanley Milgram conducted his famous obedience study at Yale University to understand why ordinary people follow destructive orders. His research was partly motivated by trying to understand the Holocaust and whether "Germans are different."

The procedure:

• 40 male participants aged 20-50 were recruited through newspaper advertisements
• Participants believed they were taking part in a study on memory and learning
• Each participant was assigned the role of "teacher" (the actual participant) while a confederate played the "learner"
• The teacher had to administer electric shocks increasing in 15-volt increments from 15V to 450V every time the learner made a mistake on a word-pair memory task
• Shocks were fake, but participants believed they were real
• The learner (confederate) was in a separate room and gave standardised responses including complaints, screams, and eventually silence
• When participants hesitated, the experimenter (authority figure) used standardised prods: "Please continue," "The experiment requires that you continue," "It is absolutely essential that you continue," and "You have no other choice, you must go on"

Key findings:

• 100% of participants continued to at least 300V (when the learner first kicked the wall)
• 65% of participants continued to the maximum 450V
• Many participants showed signs of extreme tension and stress (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter)
• Before the study, psychiatrists predicted only 1% would go to 450V

What Milgram's study tells us:

• Ordinary people will obey authority figures even when orders conflict with their conscience
• The situation is more powerful than individual personality in determining obedience
• People often underestimate the power of situational factors in influencing behaviour

Situational factors affecting obedience

Milgram conducted variations of his original study to identify which situational factors influence obedience rates.

Proximity:

• In the original study (voice feedback condition), the teacher heard but couldn't see the learner — 65% obeyed to 450V
• When the learner was in the same room (proximity condition), obedience dropped to 40%
• When the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto a shock plate (touch proximity), obedience fell to 30%
• When the experimenter gave instructions by telephone, obedience dropped to 20.5%
• Explanation: Reduced proximity removes buffers, making consequences more real and immediate

Location:

• Original study at prestigious Yale University: 65% obedience
• When moved to a run-down office building in Bridgeport, Connecticut: 47.5% obedience
• Explanation: Prestigious locations increase the legitimacy of authority

Uniform:

• When the experimenter wore a lab coat: higher obedience
• When the experimenter was replaced by an "ordinary member of the public" in normal clothes: obedience dropped to 20%
• Explanation: Uniforms are visible symbols of legitimate authority

Dispositional factors affecting obedience

While Milgram emphasised situational factors, some psychologists argue individual differences in personality affect obedience.

Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950):

Adorno proposed that some people develop personalities that make them more likely to obey authority. These individuals typically:

• Show extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to superiors
• Demonstrate contempt for those of lower status
• Hold rigid, conventional beliefs and values
• Display intolerance of ambiguity
• Are hostile towards people who are different

Origins of authoritarian personality:

• Develops from harsh, strict parenting styles with conditional love
• Children cannot express hostility towards parents, so displace it onto "safe" targets (scapegoating)
• Creates a personality pattern lasting into adulthood

Evidence:

• Elms and Milgram (1966) found that participants who fully obeyed in the original study scored higher on the F-scale (a measure of authoritarian personality) than those who defied orders
• However, the correlation was not perfect, suggesting personality alone cannot fully explain obedience

Limitations of the dispositional explanation:

• Cannot explain why obedience rates change so dramatically across Milgram's variations (65% to 20%) — personalities don't change
• The high baseline obedience rate (65%) suggests situational factors are more powerful
• Cultural and historical variations in obedience are better explained by situational factors

Agency theory as an explanation for obedience

Milgram developed agency theory to explain why people obey destructive orders.

Two states:

Autonomous state:

• Individuals direct their own behaviour
• They take personal responsibility for their actions
• Free to behave according to their own principles

Agentic state:

• Individuals see themselves as agents carrying out someone else's wishes
• They perceive themselves as not responsible for their actions
• Responsibility is transferred to the authority figure

The agentic shift:

• The transition from autonomous to agentic state
• Occurs when a person perceives someone else as a legitimate authority figure
• Once in the agentic state, it is difficult to disobey because:
  • Fear of appearing rude or incompetent
  • The binding factors of gradual commitment make it hard to reverse course

Supporting evidence from Milgram's research:

• Many participants asked "Who is responsible if something happens to the learner?"
• When told the experimenter was responsible, they continued
• Participants showed moral strain (distress), suggesting they knew their actions were wrong but felt unable to stop

Limitations:

• Doesn't explain individual differences — why did 35% resist in the baseline condition?
• Some people in the autonomous state still obey (e.g., people who voluntarily commit atrocities)
• Oversimplifies complex decision-making processes

Ethical issues in Milgram's research

Milgram's research is one of the most ethically controversial studies in psychology.

Ethical issues raised:

Deception:

• Participants believed they were administering real shocks
• They thought the learner was another participant, not a confederate
• The true aim (studying obedience) was hidden

Protection from harm:

• Participants experienced extreme psychological stress
• Three participants had seizures
• Many showed signs of distress: sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter
• Potential for long-term psychological harm to self-esteem

Right to withdraw:

• Verbal prods pressured participants to continue
• "You have no other choice, you must go on" directly contradicted their right to withdraw
• The authority of the experimenter made withdrawal psychologically difficult

Informed consent:

• Could not give fully informed consent due to deception about the study's purpose

Milgram's defence:

• Debriefing was thorough: participants met the unharmed learner and were assured their behaviour was normal
• Follow-up questionnaire: 84% were glad to have participated
• Only 1.3% regretted participation
• Follow-up psychiatric examination found no long-term harm
• The findings had significant social value in understanding destructive obedience

Modern ethical standards:

• Milgram's research would not be approved by ethics committees today
• Current British Psychological Society (BPS) guidelines have stricter requirements for informed consent and protection from harm
• Demonstrates how ethical standards in psychology have evolved

Real-world applications of obedience research

Understanding obedience has practical implications:

Positive applications:

• Training programmes for professionals (nurses, soldiers) to question unethical orders
• Understanding atrocities: My Lai massacre (Vietnam War), Abu Ghraib prison abuse
• Improving organisational structures to encourage speaking up

Preventing destructive obedience:

• Education about the power of situations
• Creating cultures where questioning authority is acceptable
• Reducing symbols of authority in sensitive situations
• Ensuring individuals see the consequences of their actions (removing buffers)
• Encouraging personal responsibility

Worked examples

Example 1: 2-mark question

Question: Outline what is meant by "legitimacy of authority." (2 marks)

Model answer: Legitimacy of authority refers to the extent to which an authority figure is perceived as having the right to give orders (1 mark). This is based on their position in a social hierarchy, such as a police officer or teacher, which leads people to accept that they should be obeyed (1 mark).

Examiner note: For 2-mark definitions, provide a clear definition (1 mark) plus elaboration or example (1 mark).

---

Example 2: 4-mark question

Question: Describe one situational factor that affects obedience. (4 marks)

Model answer: One situational factor is proximity, which refers to the physical or psychological distance between people (1 mark). In Milgram's research, when the teacher and learner were in separate rooms (remote condition), 65% of participants obeyed to 450V (1 mark). However, when they were in the same room, obedience dropped to 40%, and when the teacher had to physically force the learner's hand onto a shock plate, it fell to 30% (1 mark). This shows that proximity affects obedience because being closer to the victim removes buffers and makes the consequences of actions more real and immediate (1 mark).

Examiner note: Include identification of the factor (1), explanation (1), research evidence (1), and conclusion/explanation of why (1).

---

Example 3: 6-mark question

Question: Evaluate Milgram's research into obedience. (6 marks)

Model answer: One strength is that Milgram's research has practical applications. Understanding how situational factors increase obedience has led to training programmes for professionals like nurses and soldiers to question unethical orders, which can prevent harmful obedience in real-world settings (2 marks).

However, a limitation is the serious ethical issues. Participants were deceived about the true nature of the study and experienced extreme psychological distress, with some having seizures. Although Milgram provided thorough debriefing and follow-ups showed no long-term harm, the study would not meet modern BPS ethical guidelines (2 marks).

Another limitation concerns generalisability. All participants were American males aged 20-50, so we cannot be certain the findings apply to women or people from other cultures. Cross-cultural research has shown variation in obedience rates, suggesting cultural factors may be important (2 marks).

Examiner note: For 6-mark evaluate questions, aim for three points (strength/limitation) each developed with explanation and/or evidence. Use connective phrases like "One strength..." "However, a limitation..."

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

• Confusing obedience with conformity: Obedience involves following direct orders from an authority figure, while conformity involves changing behaviour to match a group. Don't use these terms interchangeably.

• Misremembering Milgram's statistics: The key figure is 65% obeyed to 450V in the baseline study. Many students incorrectly say "all participants" or confuse the percentages from different variations.

• Writing "Milgram proved...": Research supports or suggests explanations; it doesn't "prove" them. Use cautious language: "Milgram's research suggests..." or "evidence supports..."

• Describing but not explaining in evaluation questions: Don't just state a limitation; explain why it's a problem. For example, don't just say "only men were used" — explain that this means findings may not generalise to women.

• Ignoring the command word: "Outline" requires brief description, "describe" needs more detail, "explain" requires reasons/mechanisms, and "evaluate" demands strengths and limitations. Adjust your answer accordingly.

• Confusing agentic state with autonomous state: Autonomous state = taking personal responsibility. Agentic state = acting as an agent of authority, shifting responsibility. Students often reverse these definitions.

Exam technique for "Social Influence: Obedience"

• Know your command words: "Outline" (2 marks) = brief summary with key points. "Describe" (4 marks) = detailed account with examples/evidence. "Explain" (4-6 marks) = give reasons and mechanisms. "Evaluate" (6-9 marks) = strengths and limitations with developed points.

• Use the PEE structure for evaluation: Make a Point, provide Evidence, then Explain why it matters. For example: "A strength is high control (P). Milgram standardised procedures with scripted prods (E), meaning the study can be replicated to test reliability (Ex)."

• Link to research evidence: Don't make vague statements. Reference specific studies: "Milgram (1963) found that 65%..." or "In the proximity variation, obedience dropped to 40%..." Specific details demonstrate knowledge.

• Balance your evaluation: For 6-mark questions, aim for 2-3 strengths/limitations. Don't write four strengths and no limitations. Show you can see both sides of the debate and develop each point with explanation rather than listing many undeveloped points.

Quick revision summary

Obedience is following direct orders from authority. Milgram (1963) found 65% of participants administered maximum 450V shocks. Situational factors affecting obedience include proximity, location, and uniform. Dispositional factors include authoritarian personality. Agency theory explains obedience through the shift from autonomous to agentic state, where responsibility transfers to authority. Milgram's research raised ethical issues including deception, protection from harm, and right to withdraw, though he provided thorough debriefing. Understanding obedience has real-world applications in preventing destructive compliance.