Explanations for Obedience (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Explanations for Obedience
Psychologists have developed several theories to explain why people obey authority figures. These explanations fall into two main categories: situational explanations, which focus on environmental factors that influence obedience, and dispositional explanations, which examine personality characteristics that make some individuals more likely to obey than others.
Situational explanations
The agentic state theory
Milgram (1974) proposed the agentic state theory to explain why people follow orders even when they conflict with their personal moral beliefs. According to this theory, individuals can exist in two different psychological states:
The autonomous state occurs when people act according to their own free will and take personal responsibility for their actions and their consequences. In this state, individuals make independent decisions based on their own moral judgement.
However, when confronted by an authority figure, people may shift into an agentic state. In this condition, they surrender their free will and see themselves as merely agents carrying out the wishes of the authority figure. Crucially, they no longer feel personally responsible for the outcomes of their actions, as they believe the authority figure bears this responsibility.
Critical Concept: The agentic state represents a fundamental shift in psychological responsibility. When people enter this state, they essentially become "moral agents" of the authority figure rather than autonomous moral actors, which can lead to compliance with orders that violate their personal ethical standards.
This theory explains obedience within hierarchical social systems, where individuals with lower status defer to those with higher status. The theory suggests that from early childhood, people learn that obedience to authority is necessary for maintaining social stability, making them susceptible to entering the agentic state when faced with authority figures.
Research Evidence: Remote Authority Study
Milgram (1974) tested this theory by conducting a variation where the authority figure gave orders via telephone rather than being physically present.
Results: Obedience rates dropped significantly from 62.5% to 20.5%, suggesting that participants remained in the autonomous state and felt more personal responsibility for their actions when the authority figure was distant.
Legitimacy of authority
This explanation suggests that obedience occurs because individuals accept that certain people have the right to exercise power over others. Legitimacy of authority refers to the extent to which people perceive an authority figure as having justified power and status to give orders.
People learn to recognise legitimate authority through socialisation and experience with hierarchical relationships such as parent-child, teacher-student, and employer-employee dynamics. When individuals perceive an authority figure as legitimate, they are more likely to follow their instructions because they believe it is their duty to comply.
Research Evidence: Milgram's Authority Recognition
Milgram (1963) found that many participants showed signs of distress during his obedience studies, yet continued to obey the experimenter's orders.
Key Finding: Participants focused on following the procedure correctly rather than questioning the apparent harm they were causing, suggesting they recognised the researcher as a legitimate authority figure conducting a scientific study.
Situational variables affecting obedience
Situational variables explanation – an external explanation that sees features of an environment affecting the degree to which individuals yield to authority figures.
Proximity
Proximity refers to the physical or psychological distance between individuals and the consequences of their obedient actions. When people are closer to the effects of their behaviour, they become more aware of the impact and are less likely to continue obeying harmful orders.
The proximity effect demonstrates that physical distance can create psychological distance from moral responsibility. The further people are from witnessing the consequences of their actions, the easier it becomes to continue harmful behaviour.
Research Evidence: Milgram's Proximity Variations
Milgram (1974) demonstrated the importance of proximity through several variations of his study:
Separate rooms: Obedience remained at 62.5% Same room: When teacher and learner were together, obedience dropped to 40% Touch proximity: When teacher had to force learner's hand onto shock plate, obedience fell to 30%
This shows a clear inverse relationship between proximity and obedience levels.
Location
The location where obedience is demanded can significantly influence compliance rates. Prestigious, institutional settings tend to increase perceived legitimacy of authority figures and consequently boost obedience levels.
Research Evidence: Yale vs Office Building Study
Milgram (1974) compared obedience rates in different locations:
Yale University: 62.5% obedience rate Run-down office building: 47.5% obedience rate
The prestigious institutional setting of Yale increased the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure, demonstrating that location affects compliance.
Uniforms
Uniforms serve as visual symbols of authority and can enhance the perceived legitimacy of the person giving orders. They provide immediate recognition of someone's official status and role within a hierarchy.
Research Evidence: Bickman's Uniform Study
Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment where research assistants approached people with requests while wearing different clothing:
Civilian clothes: 19% compliance
Milkman's uniform: 14% compliance
Security guard uniform: 38% compliance
The study demonstrated that uniforms associated with authority positions significantly increase obedience rates.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The agentic state theory explains obedience as people surrendering free will and personal responsibility to authority figures, seeing themselves as agents rather than autonomous individuals
-
Situational variables like proximity, location, and uniforms significantly affect obedience levels by influencing how people perceive authority and consequences
-
Proximity matters - the closer people are to the consequences of their actions, the less likely they are to obey harmful orders
-
Legitimacy of authority depends on whether people perceive the authority figure as having the right to give orders, often influenced by setting and symbols of power