AQA A-Level Psychology 16 Mark Model Essays
Social Influence
1. Outline and evaluate the effect of situational variables on obedience (16 marks)
Situational variables are aspects of our environment that increase or decrease the likelihood of
obeying a direct order. Milgram investigated situational variables to see how they changed rates of
obedience in comparison to those observed in his baseline study, in which 65% of participants
delivered the highest voltage shock to a confederate that they believed was another participant in
the study. Decreased proximity to the person giving the direct order is one situational variable that
decreases likelihood of obedience. Milgram found that obedience decreased to 20.5% when the
Experimenter gave orders over the phone rather than in person. On the other hand, increasing the
participants' proximity to the confederate (‘Mr Wallace’) who they were shocking decreased
obedience. When Mr Wallace was in the same room as the participant ‘Teacher’, obedience dropped
to 40%, and this decreased further to 30% when the participant had to physically place Mr Wallace’s
hand onto an electroshock plate. This is because the participants were forced to confront the harm
that they were causing and it was less easy for them to distance themselves from the consequences
of their actions as when Mr Wallace was in a different room. Another situational variable is location.
Milgram manipulated this by hosting the experiment in a run-down office building rather than Yale
University, finding that obedience dropped to 47.5%. Whereas the prestigious location of the
University conferred legitimate authority onto the Experimenter (who the participants assumed has
a credible reputation by extension of their association with the University), the office building did
not have the same inherent prestige. A final situational variable is uniform, which Milgram
investigated by having the lab coat-clad Experimenter be called away ‘unexpectedly’, requiring a
plain-clothed ordinary ‘member of the public’ to assume his position. Obedience dropped to 20% -
the lowest of any of the conditions. This is because we assume that people in uniforms have a
legitimate authority that has been granted by society (for example, police officers) and therefore
they have the right to expect our obedience. We give up an element of personal liberty for the
benefit of social cohesion, law and order.
One strength of the influence of situational variables is that they have research support. Leonard
Bickman et al. studied how uniform affects obedience in a real-world environment. In New York city,
three confederates asked members of the public to give them money for a parking metre, pick up a
bag and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’. The confederate dressed
as a security guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milk man on 47% and the pedestrian
(dressed simply in a jacket and tie) on 30%. This suggests that people were more willing to obey the
security guard because his uniform suggested that he had a legitimate right to give orders.
Therefore, situational variables are useful in explaining why we obey because they are supported by
real-life evidence.
One limitation of much research into situational variables, however, is that it may lack mundane
realism. Unlike Bickman’s study, Milgram’s research was carried out under controlled laboratory
conditions, which may have increased demand characteristics. Orne and Holland have suggested,
therefore, that participants may have been ‘play-acting’ according to how they believed the
researchers wanted them to. This is an especial problem with the condition in which a member of
the public replaced the Experimenter in the study, which has been critiqued for being obviously
contrived and too far-fetched. Therefore, we cannot know whether participant behaviour was
influenced by their perception of the researchers’ aims, or whether it was genuine, which confounds
the results.
, However, the influence of situational variables has proved to have cross-cultural validity, which
suggests that they may provide a universal explanation for obedience. Meeus and Raajmakers
conducted a more realistic study on Dutch participants who were asked to say stressful things in an
interview to a person who they believed to be desperate for a job. Despite their distress, 90% of the
participants obeyed. However, when the person giving orders was not physically present - much like
Milgram’s telephone condition - obedience decreased dramatically. This adds credibility to research
into situational variables by showing findings can be replicated across different populations.
Nonetheless, as a counter-argument, Smith and Bond have suggested that research may not actually
be as cross-cultural as first appears. Many replications have taken place in places culturally similar to
the US, such as Western Europe and Australia. They found just two replications between 1969 and
1985 that took place in India and Jordan. As a result, the effect of situational variables on obedience
may not be as universal as first thought.
2. Discuss explanations for obedience (16 marks)
The legitimacy of authority explanation for obedience states that we obey because we recognise our
position, and that of others, in a hierarchy. Indicators that someone holds more power in a hierarchy
may be uniform and location. We accept that someone wearing a uniform, for example a police
officer, has the right to command our respect because their authority has been granted by society.
Leonard Bickman demonstrated this by conducting a natural experiment in New York City, in which
three confederates - dressed in different uniforms - asked members of the public to complete a
simple task. The ‘security guard’ was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the ‘milk man’ on 47% and the
‘pedestrian’ on 30%, suggesting that we respond to uniforms as signals of legitimate authority. On
the other hand, a person may obey because they are in the agentic state, which refers to feeling no
personal responsibility for our actions because we believe we are acting on behalf of an authority
figure. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and enables us to obey even a destructive
authority. Although a person may experience anxiety when they realise what they are doing is wrong
(known as ‘moral strain’), they feel powerless to disobey. To enable them to handle this, a person
may identify binding factors, which are aspects of a situation that enable them to minimise or ignore
the harm they are doing, and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling.
One strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can be used to explain differing
levels of obedience in different cultures. A cross-cultural replication of Milgram’s study in Australia
by Kilham and Mann found that only 16% of Australian women went up to full 450 volts, whereas
85% of men in Germany did so when tested by David Mantell. This makes sense when considered in
terms of differing cultural norms and the extent to which children are brought up to place
importance on authority. In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and
entitled to demand obedience from individuals, reflecting the way different societies are structured.
Therefore, the legitimacy of authority explanation is useful because it has good levels of explanatory
power in a global context.
One strength of the agentic state explanation is that it is supported by Milgram’s original study.
Many of the participants at points in the study asked the Experimenter who was responsible for the
health and safety of the confederate Learner, Mr Wallace. Once the Experimenter confirmed that
they held the responsibility, the participants often continued with the test, suggesting that they now
believed they were acting on behalf of the Experimenter’s authority and thus no longer felt
accountable for their actions. This provides support for the idea that we are more likely to obey
actions if we feel that we cannot be blamed for their consequences.
However, one limitation of both explanations is that they cannot account for disobedience in a
hierarchy, or when people remain in an autonomous in spite of the commands of an authority
