EXAM QUESTION PLANS
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience +
discuss what this tells us about why people obey (16)
Milgram carried out research, looking to discover obedience amongst
American citizens. He conducted an experiment where participants were
given the role of ‘the teacher’, where they had to shock ‘the learner’ when
they gave incorrect answers to questions that they were asked. ‘The
experimenter’ was in the same room as the teacher, and the learner was
in a separate room but could be heard. Milgram added to this experiment,
intending to discover obedience when participants were put in particular
situations – the variations of his research included proximity, location and
uniform. In his original research, the teacher and learner were in separate
rooms. Milgram looked at three different types of proximity. When the
teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience decreased from
65% to 40%. When the teacher had to force the learners hand on the
shock plate, obedience decreased to 30%. When the experimenter
provided instructions over the phone, participants were more likely to
defy the experimenter and obedience decreased to 21%. Milgram’s
findings can conclude that obedience decreases when the proximity
between the teacher and learner is closer, and when the experimenter
and teacher is further, as people can psychologically distance themselves.
For his location variation, he carried out his obedience research in a run-
down building, compared to Yale university where his original research
took place. Obedience rates dropped to 47.%, suggesting that location
conveys legitimacy and authority. Finally, his uniform variation involved a
‘random pedestrian’, who was wearing ordinary clothes, taking the place
of the experimenter. Obedience for this variation decreased, showing that
uniform provides a legitimacy of authority and when there is no uniform,
people become less obedient.
A strength of research into situational variables is that there is further
research to support the idea. Bickman investigated the power of uniform
in New York. He used three male confederates – one dressed as a
milkman, one as a security guard and one in ordinary clothes. The
confederates gave members of the public certain instructions, such as to
pick up a piece of litter. Bickman found that 76% of people obeyed the
‘security guard’s’ instructions, 47% obeyed the ‘milkman’ and only 30%
obeyed the ‘pedestrian’. This reinforces the fact that people are more
likely to obey when someone is in uniform, as it infers legitimate authority
and power, adding validity to Milgram’s research.
A further strength of the research is that there is control for extraneous
variables. Examples of possible extraneous variables could be the
presence of other people. Additionally, Milgram only altered one variable
at a time in each variation, allowing him to test the effects of each
, proximity, location and uniform and its effects on obedience individually.
This means that we can be certain that changes in obedience are caused
by manipulating the environment, and being in different situations.
Therefore his research has high external validity as it displays clear cause
and effect relationships between different situations and obedience.
However, Milgram’s research is limited due to the fact that his
experiments use artificial tasks. Measuring obedience by using electric
shocks doesn’t demonstrate how obedience occurs in real life situations.
This limits the internal validity of the research as being an explanation for
obedience in real life. Additionally, it is also suggested that in his uniform
variation, participants were more likely to realise that the procedure was
fake due to the extra experimental manipulation. The situation with the
‘member of the public’ was so contrived that some of the participants may
have worked it out – even Milgram recognised this. Therefore it is unclear
whether the participants acted this way due to obedience or because they
decided to play along.
Outline + evaluate one or more explanations of why people obey (16)
One explanation for obedience is the social psychological explanations.
This includes the agentic state and legitimacy of authority. The agentic
state is when a person moves from an autonomous state (in control of
their own behaviour and responsible for their actions) to an agentic state,
known as an agentic shift. The agentic state occurs when an individual
carries out the orders of an authority figure, and take little responsibility
for their actions. An agent may feel anxiety while being in this state, but
feel powerless to disobey – binding factors ensure that they remain in the
agentic state. These are aspects of the situation that allow the agent to
minimise damaging effects of the behaviour, reducing moral strain, for
example, money. Moreover, legitimacy of authority is the amount of social
power held by an authority figure. We live in hierarchally organised social
groups, where some members (such as teachers, parents or police) have
legitimate social power. Society collectively agrees that their authority is
legitimate, and we obey the people at the top, allowing society to function
smoothly.
A strength of the agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that
there is research to support its existence. In Milgram’s research, most
participants resisted giving shocks and asked the experimenter who would
be responsible if the learner (Mr Wallace) was harmed. When the
experimenter confirmed that he would be responsible, the participants
didn’t object to shocking him. This demonstrates that once the
participants believed they were no longer responsible, they acted more
easily as an agent, adding validity for this explanation of obedience.
Nevertheless, the agentic state doesn’t explain many research findings,
including ones that take place in real life situations. Rank and Jacobson
found that 16 out of 18 nurses failed to obey a doctor’s orders to give an
Outline research into the effect of situational variables on obedience +
discuss what this tells us about why people obey (16)
Milgram carried out research, looking to discover obedience amongst
American citizens. He conducted an experiment where participants were
given the role of ‘the teacher’, where they had to shock ‘the learner’ when
they gave incorrect answers to questions that they were asked. ‘The
experimenter’ was in the same room as the teacher, and the learner was
in a separate room but could be heard. Milgram added to this experiment,
intending to discover obedience when participants were put in particular
situations – the variations of his research included proximity, location and
uniform. In his original research, the teacher and learner were in separate
rooms. Milgram looked at three different types of proximity. When the
teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience decreased from
65% to 40%. When the teacher had to force the learners hand on the
shock plate, obedience decreased to 30%. When the experimenter
provided instructions over the phone, participants were more likely to
defy the experimenter and obedience decreased to 21%. Milgram’s
findings can conclude that obedience decreases when the proximity
between the teacher and learner is closer, and when the experimenter
and teacher is further, as people can psychologically distance themselves.
For his location variation, he carried out his obedience research in a run-
down building, compared to Yale university where his original research
took place. Obedience rates dropped to 47.%, suggesting that location
conveys legitimacy and authority. Finally, his uniform variation involved a
‘random pedestrian’, who was wearing ordinary clothes, taking the place
of the experimenter. Obedience for this variation decreased, showing that
uniform provides a legitimacy of authority and when there is no uniform,
people become less obedient.
A strength of research into situational variables is that there is further
research to support the idea. Bickman investigated the power of uniform
in New York. He used three male confederates – one dressed as a
milkman, one as a security guard and one in ordinary clothes. The
confederates gave members of the public certain instructions, such as to
pick up a piece of litter. Bickman found that 76% of people obeyed the
‘security guard’s’ instructions, 47% obeyed the ‘milkman’ and only 30%
obeyed the ‘pedestrian’. This reinforces the fact that people are more
likely to obey when someone is in uniform, as it infers legitimate authority
and power, adding validity to Milgram’s research.
A further strength of the research is that there is control for extraneous
variables. Examples of possible extraneous variables could be the
presence of other people. Additionally, Milgram only altered one variable
at a time in each variation, allowing him to test the effects of each
, proximity, location and uniform and its effects on obedience individually.
This means that we can be certain that changes in obedience are caused
by manipulating the environment, and being in different situations.
Therefore his research has high external validity as it displays clear cause
and effect relationships between different situations and obedience.
However, Milgram’s research is limited due to the fact that his
experiments use artificial tasks. Measuring obedience by using electric
shocks doesn’t demonstrate how obedience occurs in real life situations.
This limits the internal validity of the research as being an explanation for
obedience in real life. Additionally, it is also suggested that in his uniform
variation, participants were more likely to realise that the procedure was
fake due to the extra experimental manipulation. The situation with the
‘member of the public’ was so contrived that some of the participants may
have worked it out – even Milgram recognised this. Therefore it is unclear
whether the participants acted this way due to obedience or because they
decided to play along.
Outline + evaluate one or more explanations of why people obey (16)
One explanation for obedience is the social psychological explanations.
This includes the agentic state and legitimacy of authority. The agentic
state is when a person moves from an autonomous state (in control of
their own behaviour and responsible for their actions) to an agentic state,
known as an agentic shift. The agentic state occurs when an individual
carries out the orders of an authority figure, and take little responsibility
for their actions. An agent may feel anxiety while being in this state, but
feel powerless to disobey – binding factors ensure that they remain in the
agentic state. These are aspects of the situation that allow the agent to
minimise damaging effects of the behaviour, reducing moral strain, for
example, money. Moreover, legitimacy of authority is the amount of social
power held by an authority figure. We live in hierarchally organised social
groups, where some members (such as teachers, parents or police) have
legitimate social power. Society collectively agrees that their authority is
legitimate, and we obey the people at the top, allowing society to function
smoothly.
A strength of the agentic state as an explanation for obedience is that
there is research to support its existence. In Milgram’s research, most
participants resisted giving shocks and asked the experimenter who would
be responsible if the learner (Mr Wallace) was harmed. When the
experimenter confirmed that he would be responsible, the participants
didn’t object to shocking him. This demonstrates that once the
participants believed they were no longer responsible, they acted more
easily as an agent, adding validity for this explanation of obedience.
Nevertheless, the agentic state doesn’t explain many research findings,
including ones that take place in real life situations. Rank and Jacobson
found that 16 out of 18 nurses failed to obey a doctor’s orders to give an
