Factors Affecting Obedience

Milgram's variations and other research have identified several factors that increase or decrease obedience to authority. Understanding these factors helps explain why people sometimes obey harmful orders and how resistance to authority can be encouraged.

---

Situational Factors

1. Proximity of the Authority Figure

Obedience increases when the authority figure is physically close and decreases when they are absent:

• In Milgram's original study (experimenter in the room): 65% obeyed
• When the experimenter gave instructions by telephone: only 20.5% obeyed
• Some participants even cheated by giving lower shocks than instructed when the experimenter was not watching

2. Proximity of the Victim

Obedience decreases when the person being harmed is closer to the person obeying:

• When the learner was in a separate room (voice only): 65% obeyed
• When the learner was in the same room: 40% obeyed
• When the teacher had to physically force the learner's hand onto the shock plate: 30% obeyed

The closer the victim, the harder it is to maintain the agentic state — seeing the person's suffering makes the individual feel more personally responsible.

3. Location and Legitimacy

Obedience decreases when the setting is less prestigious:

• At Yale University: 65% obeyed
• In a run-down office building: 47.5% obeyed

The authority figure's perceived legitimacy is partly derived from the setting. A prestigious institution lends credibility to the authority figure and the study.

4. Presence of Allies (Social Support)

Obedience decreases dramatically when others disobey:

• When two confederate teachers refused to continue, only 10% of participants continued to 450V
• Having allies who resist authority gives the individual social support and makes disobedience seem more acceptable

5. Uniform and Symbols of Authority

Authority figures are more likely to be obeyed when they wear uniforms or other symbols of authority (lab coats, badges, titles):

• Bickman (1974) found that pedestrians were more likely to obey a request (e.g. picking up litter, moving away from a bus stop) when the person making the request wore a security guard uniform compared to ordinary clothes

---

flowchart LR
    B["Milgram BASELINE<br/>Yale, voice-only learner<br/>experimenter present<br/>65% to 450V"]
    B -->|Experimenter on phone<br/>PROXIMITY of authority| P1[20.5%]
    B -->|Learner same room<br/>PROXIMITY of victim| P2[40%]
    B -->|Forced hand on plate| P3[30%]
    B -->|Run-down office<br/>LOCATION / legitimacy| P4[47.5%]
    B -->|Two peers refuse<br/>SOCIAL SUPPORT| P5[10%]
    B -->|Two experimenters<br/>disagree| P6[0%]

---

The Agentic State and Autonomous State

State	Description	Behaviour
Agentic state	The person sees themselves as an agent of the authority figure — carrying out orders	Obeys even if actions cause harm; does not feel personally responsible
Autonomous state	The person is self-directed — making their own decisions and taking responsibility	May resist or disobey; feels personally responsible for actions

The shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state is called the agentic shift. This happens when a person recognises someone as a legitimate authority and hands over responsibility to them.

---

Agency Theory

Agency theory (proposed by Milgram) states that:

1. People exist in one of two states: agentic or autonomous
2. When in the agentic state, people obey authority because they do not feel responsible for their actions
3. The agentic state is a product of socialisation — from childhood, people are taught to obey authority figures (parents, teachers, police)
4. Moral strain occurs when a person in the agentic state is ordered to do something that conflicts with their conscience — this explains the visible distress shown by Milgram's participants

Evaluation of Agency Theory

Strength	Weakness
Explains why people obey orders they find morally wrong	Does not explain why 35% did not obey — why did they remain in the autonomous state?
Supported by Milgram's observations of participants' distress (moral strain)	Oversimplifies obedience — other factors (personality, culture) also play a role
Applicable to real-world situations (e.g. military obedience, corporate misconduct)	Difficult to test scientifically — how do you measure whether someone is in the agentic state?

---

Dispositional Factors

While Milgram emphasised situational factors, other researchers have explored dispositional (personality-related) factors:

Authoritarian Personality

Adorno et al. (1950) proposed the concept of the authoritarian personality — a personality type characterised by:

• Obedience to authority and contempt for those seen as inferior
• Rigid thinking and intolerance of ambiguity
• Conventional values and hostility towards people who are different

Adorno argued that this personality type develops from strict, punitive parenting in childhood. People with authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey authority figures uncritically.

---

Resisting Obedience

Research suggests several factors that help people resist obedience:

Factor	How It Helps
Social support	Having others who disobey makes it easier to resist (Milgram's variation: 10% obedience)
Questioning legitimacy	If the authority figure's right to give orders is questioned, obedience decreases
Physical distance from authority	The further the authority figure, the easier it is to disobey
Proximity to victim	Being close to the person being harmed makes disobedience more likely
Education about obedience	Understanding the psychology of obedience (e.g. learning about Milgram) may help people recognise and resist it

Exam Tip: Be able to link factors affecting obedience back to specific variations of Milgram's study. For each factor, give the relevant obedience rate from the variation.

---

Key Points

• Obedience increases with proximity of authority figure, distance from victim, and legitimacy of setting.
• Obedience decreases with social support (allies), proximity to the victim, and reduced authority.
• Agency theory: obedience occurs in the agentic state when people feel the authority figure is responsible.
• Dispositional factors (e.g. authoritarian personality) may also influence obedience.
• Resistance to obedience is increased by social support, questioning legitimacy, and education.

---

Worked study: Milgram (1963) — what the variations tell us about factors affecting obedience

Milgram's baseline study plus his systematic variations provide the core evidence base for every named factor affecting obedience. Examiners reward precise use of the variation obedience rates.