The Effect of Situational Factors on Obedience (OCR GCSE Psychology): Revision Note

Authority figures & obedience

• Obedience can often be explained by situational factors, such as:

  • the presence of authority figures

  • the social context

• People are more likely to obey someone they see as an authority figure, such as a

  • teacher

  • doctor

  • police officer

  • scientist

• Authority figures have social power — they are seen as having legitimate control or expertise

  • This makes others feel compelled to follow their instructions

• Psychologists became especially interested in obedience after the atrocities of World War II, when Nazi officers like Adolf Eichmann claimed they were “following orders”

• This raised questions about how ordinary people could commit harmful acts under authority

Milgram’s research on obedience (1963)

• Milgram investigated the effect of authority on obedience using a controlled experiment

• Participants believed they were giving electric shocks to a 'learner' for each wrong answer under the supervision of a researcher in a white lab coat

  • 65% of participants obeyed fully, administering the maximum 450 volts, despite signs of distress

  • This showed how situational factors — not personality — could explain obedience

• Milgram identified several key situational factors that increased obedience:

  • Presence of an authority figure – The lab coat symbolised authority and professionalism

  • Location – Experimenting at Yale University gave it legitimacy

  • Proximity – When the learner was in another room, participants found it easier to obey

  • Responsibility – When the researcher said they would take responsibility for any harm, participants felt less personally accountable

Agency theory

• Milgram suggested that obedience occurs because people shift from acting autonomously to acting in an agentic state

• In the agentic state, people believe the authority figure is responsible for the consequences, not themselves

  • This helps explain why people can obey orders even when they know those orders are wrong

• Hofling (1966) supported Milgram’s ideas in a field study conducted in a hospital:

  • Nurses received a phone call from a 'doctor' instructing them to give a patient an excessive dose of medicine

  • 21 out of 22 nurses were willing to obey, even though they knew it broke hospital rules

  • When questioned, the nurses stated that in a busy hospital, nurses are expected to follow the doctor’s orders

  • This real-life setting showed that situational pressures can lead people to obey authority figures

Charismatic leaders

• Some psychologists, like House et al. (1991), argue that obedience can also be influenced by the personality of the leader

• A charismatic leader creates a strong emotional bond with followers, making them more likely to obey out of admiration or loyalty rather than fear or duty

• This helps explain why some groups obey willingly when they feel inspired by a leader’s vision

Criticisms of situational factors

• Reductionist

  • Situational theories focus too much on external influences and ignore individual differences like personality, morality, or upbringing

    • E.g. not all participants conformed in Asch’s studies or obeyed in Milgram’s research, showing personal values also matter

    • Similarly, in crowds, some people remain calm or help others rather than engaging in anti-social acts

• Determinism vs free will

  • Situational explanations can sound deterministic, suggesting people have no control over their actions

  • Critics argue that humans have free will and can resist social pressure or authority

    • E.g. in Milgram’s study, 35% of participants refused to continue, showing conscious moral choice

    • In crowds, people can choose pro-social actions such as helping during an emergency rather than acting aggressively

• Cultural bias

  • Much research on social influence and obedience was conducted in Western, individualist cultures

  • People in collectivist cultures may show different levels of conformity and pro-social behaviour because they place greater value on group harmony

  • This means findings may not generalise globally

• Lack of representativeness

  • Many studies (such as those on pro-social behaviour) were conducted on children or students, which limits generalisability

  • Adults in the workplace or real-life settings may respond differently to social pressure or authority figures

• Ethical concerns

  • Research such as Milgram’s caused participants stress and guilt, as they believed they were harming others

  • This raises issues around informed consent and psychological harm when studying obedience and conformity

• Individual differences

  • Situational theories cannot explain why some individuals disobey authority or refuse to follow group norms, even in the same situation

  • This shows that dispositional factors, such as confidence or moral reasoning, also influence behaviour

• Overemphasis on anti-social behaviour

  • Situational theories often focus on negative outcomes (like riots or blind obedience)

  • They ignore the fact that groups can also promote positive, pro-social actions, such as charity, volunteering, or peaceful protest