You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Component 02 does not merely ask you to know each core study in isolation; it asks you to hold each classic–contemporary pair together and to reason about them comparatively. For the social-area theme of responses to people in authority, that pair is Milgram (1963) and Bocchiaro et al. (2012). This lesson is entirely devoted to the comparison the specification demands: how the two studies are similar and different (in era, method, culture, sample and findings); how far the contemporary study changes our understanding of the theme and of individual, social and cultural diversity; and how to evaluate the two together. Mastering this comparison is worth a great deal, because "compare-the-pair" questions are a signature of OCR's Section A, and because the same comparative skill underlies the areas/perspectives/debates essays of Section B.
The lesson assumes you have met both studies in their own right (see the Milgram and Bocchiaro lessons). Here the focus shifts from storytelling to argument: what do we learn about obedience by looking at the two studies side by side that we could not learn from either alone?
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Similarities and differences between Milgram and Bocchiaro (method, sample, era, culture, findings) | Section A — Social; theme: responses to people in authority (pair) | AO1; AO3 comparison |
| How far Bocchiaro updates our understanding of the theme | Section A — pair; "changing understanding" | AO3 |
| Individual, social and cultural diversity across the pair | Section A — pair; diversity | AO2; AO3 |
| Comparative evaluation (validity, ethics, generalisability) | Section A; Section B debates | AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (recalling the key features of each study accurately enough to compare them), AO2 (applying the pair to questions of diversity) and — above all — AO3 (constructing a balanced, evidenced comparison and judgement).
Before turning to the two studies, it is worth being clear about why OCR sets compare-the-pair questions at all, because understanding the purpose sharpens the technique. Knowing two studies separately is a matter of recall; comparing them is a matter of analysis. When you place Milgram and Bocchiaro side by side, you are forced to ask questions that neither study answers on its own: is high obedience a stable feature of human behaviour or a product of one time and place? Does the way we measure a phenomenon shape what we discover about it? Can a theme be studied more ethically without losing the finding? These are questions about the theme of authority itself, not merely about either study — and they are precisely the questions the pairing is designed to provoke. A comparison, done well, produces knowledge that is genuinely more than the sum of its two parts, and it is this "added value" that the AO3 marks on a pair question reward. The remainder of this lesson is organised to build that comparative habit: similarities first (what makes the pairing legitimate), then differences (what makes it illuminating), then the higher-order judgements about updating and diversity that the comparison makes possible.
Although they were conducted almost half a century apart, Milgram and Bocchiaro share a striking amount, and it is the similarities that make them a legitimate pair rather than two unrelated studies. A common student error is to rush to the differences, treating "compare" as a synonym for "contrast"; but the similarities are doing essential analytical work. It is because the two studies share a theme, a broad method and — crucially — a convergent core finding that their differences become interpretable. If the samples differ but the finding is the same, the shared finding looks robust; if the measures differ and one study finds something the other could not, the extra measure looks like a genuine advance. Without the shared spine, the differences would be mere miscellany. So the disciplined comparative move is to establish the similarities first, and then read the differences against them.
Shared theme and topic. Both investigate obedience to an authority figure who issues an unethical instruction. In each, an ordinary participant is placed under pressure from a plausible authority to do something that conflicts with conscience — to harm a stranger (Milgram) or to help deceive and endanger other students (Bocchiaro).
Shared core finding: obedience dominates. The headline result is convergent. Milgram found 65% obeyed to the maximum; Bocchiaro found roughly three-quarters obeyed the unethical request. Both therefore demonstrate that obedience to authority is far more common than intuition suggests — and both explicitly document the gap between what people predict and what people do (Milgram informally, through his pre-study surveys; Bocchiaro formally, through a base-rate prediction group).
Shared situational interpretation. Both studies conclude that the situation, not the participants' disposition, is the primary driver. Milgram's participants were ordinary men; Bocchiaro found personality measures did not sharply distinguish obeyers from resisters. Each therefore supports a situational account and sits on the same side of the individual–situational debate.
Shared method family. Both are broadly controlled, laboratory-based procedures using deception and a standardised script, staging a realistic social dilemma. Both are therefore highly replicable and share the same fundamental strength (control and standardisation) and the same fundamental limitation (a degree of artificiality and the ethics of deception).
Shared reliance on confederates and cover stories. In each study the participant is deceived by a plausible authority figure operating to a script, and the true aim is concealed behind a benign cover ("memory and learning"; "sensory deprivation").
| Dimension of similarity | Milgram (1963) | Bocchiaro et al. (2012) |
|---|---|---|
| Theme | Obedience to an unethical authority | Obedience to an unethical authority |
| Core finding | Obedience high (65% to 450V) | Obedience high (~76%) |
| Explanation favoured | Situational | Situational (traits weak) |
| Method family | Controlled lab procedure, deception, standardised | Controlled lab scenario, deception, standardised |
| Predicted vs actual | People underestimated obedience | People underestimated obedience; overestimated whistle-blowing |
The differences are what make the pairing illuminating, because they let us ask whether Milgram's classic finding survives changes of era, culture, sample and method — and what the contemporary study adds.
Era. Milgram was conducted in 1963, at the height of post-war concern with obedience and before modern ethical codes; Bocchiaro was conducted around 2012, under contemporary ethical governance. The half-century gap lets us ask whether obedience is a stable feature of human behaviour or a product of its time.
Culture and sample. Milgram sampled 40 American men (working adults, New Haven); Bocchiaro sampled 149 Dutch undergraduates (majority female, one university). The pair therefore differs in nationality, sex composition, age and occupation — so the convergent obedience finding holds across two quite different Western populations.
What was measured. This is the most important difference. Milgram measured essentially a single dimension — how far the participant obeyed (maximum voltage). Bocchiaro measured three distinct responses — obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing — and so opened up the previously under-studied territory of active dissent. Milgram tells us how readily people obey; Bocchiaro tells us, in addition, how rarely they report wrongdoing even when a safe channel exists.
Nature of the harmful act. In Milgram the participant's act (delivering shocks) directly and immediately harmed the apparent victim; in Bocchiaro the harmful act (writing a misleading statement) was indirect and deferred — it would harm future students only if they were later recruited and studied. Bocchiaro's dilemma is thus less viscerally dramatic but arguably closer to many real institutional wrongs, which are bureaucratic and once-removed.
Ethics and harm. Milgram's procedure caused severe, visible distress and a genuine (if simulated) victim; Bocchiaro's caused far less harm, with no real victim and a much milder dilemma. The contemporary study models a more humane way to research the same theme.
Role of prediction. Bocchiaro built the predicted-versus-actual comparison into the design as a formal base-rate condition; Milgram only informally surveyed expectations beforehand. Bocchiaro therefore delivers a rigorous demonstration that people mispredict not just obedience but whistle-blowing.
Not all of these differences carry equal analytical weight, and part of the skill of a compare-the-pair answer is knowing which differences matter for the theme and which are comparatively incidental. The difference in what was measured is the most significant, because it changes the scope of what each study can tell us — Milgram simply could not have discovered anything about whistle-blowing, so this difference marks a genuine expansion of the theme. The differences in era and culture matter next, because they are what make the convergent finding evidentially valuable (agreement across different times and places is more persuasive than agreement within one). The difference in harm level matters chiefly for the ethics strand and for the reassuring inference that the finding is not an artefact of Milgram's distressing method. By contrast, some differences — the exact recruitment method, the precise number of participants — are real but comparatively minor for interpreting the theme, and a well-judged answer spends its words on the consequential differences rather than cataloguing every contrast. Prioritising differences by their bearing on the theme, rather than listing them flatly, is a subtle marker of a top-band comparative response, and it mirrors the way a researcher would actually reason about two studies of the same phenomenon.
| Dimension of difference | Milgram (1963) | Bocchiaro et al. (2012) |
|---|---|---|
| Era | 1963, pre-modern ethics codes | c. 2012, modern ethical governance |
| Sample | 40 US men, working adults | 149 Dutch students, majority female |
| Responses measured | Obedience only (max voltage) | Obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing |
| Harmful act | Direct, immediate (shocks) | Indirect, deferred (misleading statement) |
| Harm to participants | Severe distress | Much milder |
| Prediction comparison | Informal pre-study survey | Formal base-rate condition |
The specification asks specifically how far the contemporary study changes our understanding — a question that rewards a nuanced answer rather than "it does" or "it doesn't".
In one sense, Bocchiaro confirms and consolidates Milgram rather than overturning him. The central lesson — that ordinary people obey unethical authority far more readily than they or others predict — is reproduced in a different country, a different decade, a different (and more female) sample, and a completely different task. That convergence is powerful: it suggests Milgram's finding was not a quirk of 1960s American men but a robust feature of human social behaviour. So the first thing Bocchiaro changes is our confidence: obedience to authority looks more clearly like a general phenomenon.
In another sense, Bocchiaro extends our understanding into genuinely new territory. Milgram could tell us whether people would stop obeying; he could not tell us whether people who refuse will go on to report the wrongdoing. Bocchiaro's central innovation — separating disobedience from whistle-blowing — reveals that these are not the same thing and that whistle-blowing is far rarer than mere refusal. This is new knowledge with direct real-world significance: it implies that even the minority who resist an unethical instruction usually will not expose it, so societies cannot rely on individual conscience and must build institutional protections. Milgram never framed the question this way.
Bocchiaro also updates the ethical and methodological model of how the theme can be studied: it shows that the obedience paradigm can be run with far less harm, which matters both ethically and for the credibility of the research. And by formalising the predicted-versus-actual comparison, it turns Milgram's informal observation (people mispredict obedience) into a rigorous, quantified finding that also covers whistle-blowing.
The balanced judgement, then, is that Bocchiaro changes our understanding partly by confirmation and partly by extension: it strengthens the situational account across time and culture, while adding the crucial insight that disobedience and whistle-blowing come apart, and that the latter is rare. It does not refute Milgram; it deepens and modernises the theme.
It is worth naming explicitly why "confirmation plus extension" is a stronger answer than either "it changes everything" or "it changes nothing", because the choice between these framings is often what separates bands on this question. To say Bocchiaro "overturns" Milgram is simply false — the core finding of high obedience is reproduced, not contradicted, so a student who claims refutation has misread the relationship. But to say Bocchiaro "adds nothing new" is equally wrong, because the disobedience/whistle-blowing distinction and the formal prediction comparison are genuinely novel contributions with their own findings. The accurate position is the nuanced middle one, and it is more sophisticated precisely because it refuses to force a complex relationship into a simple verdict. This is a transferable exam lesson: whenever a question asks "how far" something is true, the strongest answers almost always resist the extremes and argue for a qualified, evidenced middle position — here, that the contemporary study consolidates the classic on its own ground while extending it onto new ground.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 9 lessons in this course.