You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Obedience is a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order from a person perceived to be a legitimate authority figure. Unlike conformity, obedience involves a clear difference in social status between the person giving the order and the person obeying. Stanley Milgram's research on obedience remains one of the most significant — and most controversial — studies in the history of psychology, and it anchors a cluster of examinable material: the baseline procedure and findings, the situational variations (proximity, location, uniform), and the explanations of obedience (the agentic state and legitimacy of authority).
Key Definition: Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order or instruction from an authority figure. The person who obeys is usually of lower status than the person who gives the order.
This lesson covers the AQA Paper 1 Social Influence content on obedience. Specifically it addresses Milgram's research into obedience; the explanations for obedience, namely the agentic state and legitimacy of authority; and the situational variables affecting obedience, namely proximity, location and uniform, as investigated by Milgram and others. Although the dispositional explanation (the authoritarian personality) is a separate specification point usually taught in its own lesson, it is introduced here because the situational–dispositional debate is impossible to evaluate without it. You should be able to describe Milgram's procedure and findings and the two explanations (AO1), apply them to scenarios (AO2), and evaluate the research and explanations through methodology, ethics, validity and competing accounts (AO3).
It is important to distinguish obedience from conformity, as exam questions may require you to compare them:
| Feature | Obedience | Conformity |
|---|---|---|
| Source of influence | An authority figure giving a direct order | The majority of a group exerting implicit pressure |
| Status difference | Yes — the authority figure has higher perceived status | No — influence comes from peers of equal status |
| Explicitness | Explicit — a direct instruction or command | Implicit — pressure to fit in is often unspoken |
| Behaviour change | The person does something they are told to do | The person changes their behaviour to match the group |
| Awareness | The person is usually aware they are being told what to do | The person may not be fully aware of the group's influence |
Milgram conducted his research in the early 1960s, partly motivated by events of the Second World War and the Holocaust. The trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 raised the question of whether those who carried out atrocities were uniquely evil, or whether they were ordinary people who were "simply following orders." The prevailing view at the time — the so-called "Germans are different" hypothesis — held that the perpetrators of the Holocaust had a defective, particularly obedient national character. Milgram set out to test an alternative, situational explanation: that ordinary Americans, given the right circumstances, could be induced to harm an innocent person simply because an authority figure told them to.
To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an authority figure's instruction to inflict harm on an innocent person, and to test whether obedience was a product of the situation rather than the disposition of the obeyer.
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Participants reaching 450V (full obedience) | 65% (26 out of 40) |
| Participants reaching 300V | 100% — every participant went at least this far |
| Signs of distress | Sweating, trembling, stuttering, groaning, digging fingernails into palms; three participants had full-blown uncontrollable seizures |
Ordinary people are astonishingly willing to obey the orders of a legitimate authority figure, even to the point of (apparently) seriously harming an innocent person, and even when they find doing so deeply distressing. Crucially, before the study a panel of psychiatrists had predicted that only around 0.1% would administer the maximum shock — the gulf between this prediction and the 65% obtained demonstrated that obedience is driven far more by the situation than observers intuitively expect. Milgram concluded that the capacity for destructive obedience is a feature of the social situation, not a defect of national character, directly undermining the "Germans are different" hypothesis.
Key Definition: The agentic state is a mental state where a person sees themselves as an agent carrying out the wishes of another person (the authority figure) and therefore feels little personal responsibility for their actions.
Milgram conducted over 20 variations to identify which situational factors influenced obedience levels. The three the specification names explicitly are proximity, location and uniform.
| Variation | Change | Obedience Rate (to 450V) | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Original setup at Yale | 65% | High legitimacy of authority |
| Proximity | Learner in same room as teacher | 40% | Harder to ignore the victim's distress; reduces the buffering effect |
| Touch-proximity | Teacher had to force learner's hand onto a shock plate | 30% | Direct physical contact maximises empathic confrontation |
| Experimenter absent / telephoned | Experimenter gave instructions by phone from another room | 20.5% | Reduced immediacy and surveillance of authority; some participants secretly gave lower shocks |
| Run-down office | Study relocated to a run-down office block in Bridgeport, unaffiliated with Yale | 47.5% | Reduced institutional legitimacy of the setting |
| Uniform | Experimenter replaced part-way by an "ordinary member of the public" in everyday clothes | 20% | Removing the symbol of authority (the lab coat) reduces perceived legitimacy |
| Two teachers disobey | Two confederate "teachers" refused to continue (at 150V and 210V) | 10% | Social support; provides a model for defiance and undermines the authority's power |
Proximity lowered obedience because the closer the teacher was to the consequences of their actions, the harder it was to deny responsibility — increasing proximity reduces the psychological buffer between the act and its effect. Location mattered because the prestige of Yale conferred legitimacy; stripping that away (the Bridgeport office) reduced, though did not eliminate, obedience. Uniform mattered because a grey lab coat is a recognised symbol of scientific authority; replacing it with ordinary clothes removed the visual cue that the order-giver was legitimate. Each variation is a clean manipulation of a single situational variable, which is why this body of work is held up as a model of experimental control.
Milgram proposed that people can operate in one of two psychological states:
Once in the agentic state, the individual experiences moral strain (the discomfort of acting against their conscience) but manages it using binding factors — features of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and so reduce the moral strain (for example, shifting blame to the victim, or focusing narrowly on the procedural details of the task). The agentic state explains why Milgram's participants continued: they felt the experimenter, not themselves, was responsible for any harm.
Closely related is the explanation that we obey people we perceive to have legitimate authority over us:
In contrast to these situational explanations, Adorno proposed that obedience reflects a particular personality type:
This explanation is examined in detail in its own lesson, but it is introduced here as the dispositional counterweight that the situational–dispositional debate requires.
Orne and Holland (1968) argued that Milgram's study lacked internal validity because participants may have seen through the deception and not genuinely believed they were delivering real shocks (a problem of demand characteristics). If participants were merely "going along with the show", the study tells us about role-play, not obedience. However, this critique is strongly countered by the visible, extreme distress participants displayed — full seizures and trembling are difficult to fake and imply genuine belief. Milgram himself reported that 70% of participants in a post-study survey said they had believed the shocks were real and painful. The implication is that, while the criticism is theoretically reasonable, the behavioural evidence makes it more likely that obedience was authentic, preserving the study's internal validity.
The agentic state theory struggles to account for the 35% who disobeyed: if obedience were simply a matter of shifting into an agentic state under authority, we would expect near-universal compliance, not a sizeable minority who resisted. Moreover, the theory cannot easily explain gradual disobedience or the role of personal moral conviction. Mandel (1998) noted that real-world atrocities (such as the actions of Reserve Police Battalion 101 in the Holocaust) were sometimes carried out even when men were explicitly offered the chance to opt out without penalty — directly contradicting the idea that they obeyed because they felt unable to refuse. This suggests the agentic state is, at best, a partial explanation, and that dispositional and ideological factors (what people believed they were achieving) also matter. The implication is that obedience cannot be reduced to a single situational mechanism.
In contrast, the legitimacy of authority explanation is well supported and has real explanatory power. Milgram's location and uniform variations directly demonstrate that manipulating the legitimacy of the authority changes obedience. Bickman (1974) provided striking field-experiment support: in New York, confederates dressed as a guard, a milkman or in ordinary clothes asked passers-by to perform tasks (such as picking up litter or providing a coin for a parking meter); obedience was roughly twice as high when the confederate wore the guard's uniform. This matters because it shows the legitimacy effect generalises beyond Milgram's artificial lab into everyday street behaviour, increasing the explanation's ecological validity. The implication is that legitimacy of authority is among the more robust and empirically grounded explanations in the topic.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.