Social psychology: obedience (Milgram and agency theory), prejudice (social identity theory and realistic conflict theory), individual and situational explanations, and key social studies.

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel wants you to explain obedience through Milgram's research and agency theory, explain prejudice through social identity theory and realistic conflict theory, weigh individual against situational explanations, and know the named social studies including Milgram and Sherif. The exam reward is balancing dispositional and situational accounts.

The answer

Obedience: Milgram and agency theory

Milgram's classic study had 40 male volunteers act as "teachers" delivering escalating fake shocks (15 to 450 volts) to a "learner" (a confederate) on the orders of an experimenter who gave standardised verbal prods. All went to at least 300 volts and 65 per cent reached the maximum 450 volts. Milgram concluded that situational factors, not evil dispositions, explain destructive obedience.

Agency theory explains this: people shift into the agentic state when an authority is seen as legitimate, allowing them to pass responsibility upward. Gradual commitment (small initial steps) and the presence of authority push people deeper into obedience. Milgram's variations (proximity of the victim, location, uniform of the authority) systematically changed obedience rates, showing the power of the situation.

Prejudice: social identity theory and realistic conflict theory

Sherif's Robbers Cave study placed 22 boys into two groups; competition produced hostility, and shared superordinate goals (such as fixing the camp water supply) reduced it. This supports realistic conflict theory over a purely dispositional account, but Tajfel's minimal group studies showed that mere categorisation, without real competition, is enough to create in-group favouritism, supporting social identity theory.

Individual versus situational explanations

An individual (dispositional) explanation locates the cause inside the person, such as Adorno's authoritarian personality (rigid, hostile to out-groups, submissive to authority, formed by harsh parenting and measured by the F-scale). A situational explanation locates the cause in the environment, such as Milgram's proximity, location and uniform variations or Sherif's competition. The exam reward is weighing the two.

Evaluation (GRAVE)

• Generalisability. Milgram's sample of 40 American men is androcentric and culturally narrow; Sherif used 22 same-age American boys, so neither generalises easily to all people.
• Reliability. Both studies used standardised procedures, so they have been replicated with similar results, supporting reliability.
• Application. The findings inform how to reduce destructive obedience (questioning authority) and prejudice (cooperative superordinate goals, used in classroom and community programmes).
• Validity. Milgram's task is artificial (low ecological validity) and open to demand characteristics; Sherif's field setting is more naturalistic but lacked full control.
• Ethics. Milgram used deception and caused psychological harm and pressure that undermined withdrawal; Sherif manipulated children into conflict without full consent, though both debriefed.

Examples in context

Example 1. Milgram's variations and the power of the situation. Milgram did not stop at the baseline 65 per cent; he ran variations that isolated situational factors. When the experimenter gave orders by telephone rather than in person, obedience fell sharply (to around 21 per cent), showing the importance of the physical presence of authority. When the study moved from prestigious Yale to a run-down office, obedience also dropped, showing the role of the perceived legitimacy of the setting. When the learner was in the same room, obedience fell further. These variations are strong evidence for the situational explanation and agency theory, and they are exactly the kind of detail Edexcel rewards beyond the headline figure.

Example 2. Sherif's Robbers Cave and reducing prejudice. After two groups of boys (the Eagles and the Rattlers) developed hostility through competitive tournaments, simply bringing them together did not reduce conflict. Prejudice only fell when Sherif introduced superordinate goals that required both groups to cooperate, such as restarting a broken-down truck and fixing the camp water supply. This supports realistic conflict theory (competition causes prejudice) and offers a practical intervention (shared goals reduce it), which has informed real-world approaches such as the cooperative jigsaw classroom for reducing intergroup hostility.

Try this

Q1. Explain how agency theory accounts for the findings of Milgram's obedience study. [4 marks]

• Cue. Participants entered an agentic state, seeing themselves as instruments of a legitimate authority and shifting responsibility to the experimenter, so they continued to deliver shocks.

Q2. Outline one difference between social identity theory and realistic conflict theory as explanations of prejudice. [2 marks]

• Cue. Social identity theory needs only categorisation into in-group and out-group; realistic conflict theory requires actual competition over scarce resources.

Q3. Assess individual and situational explanations of prejudice. [8 marks]

• Cue. Contrast Adorno's authoritarian personality (dispositional, F-scale, correlational evidence) with social identity theory and realistic conflict theory (situational, Tajfel and Sherif); conclude that situational evidence is strong but disposition may interact with it.