Why do ordinary people obey an authority figure even when ordered to harm someone?
Classic study: Milgram (1963), Behavioral study of obedience. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and debates.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the classic social study, Milgram (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. Covers the aim, controlled-observation procedure, the 65 per cent maximum-shock finding, agency theory, evaluation for ethics, validity and generalisability, and links to the social area and the situational explanation debate.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Milgram (1963) is the classic study in the social area for the theme "responses to people in authority", paired with Bocchiaro. You must know its aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluate it, and explain what it tells us about the social area and the debates (especially the situational explanation of behaviour and ethics).
The answer
Aim and method
The role of teacher was fixed by a rigged draw, the learner gave scripted wrong answers and distress responses, and the experimenter used four standardised verbal prods when the teacher hesitated.
Results and conclusions
Evaluation
- Reliability. The standardised procedure (the same prods, set-up and confederate script) makes the study highly replicable, and later variations replicated the core effect.
- Internal validity. High control over the situation supports the conclusion that authority caused obedience, though some critics argue participants may have seen through the deception (questioning whether they believed the shocks were real).
- Ecological validity. The artificial lab task (shocking a stranger for wrong answers) is unlike everyday obedience, limiting generalisation, though field replications have produced similar effects.
- Generalisability. The sample was 40 American men, so the findings are androcentric and culturally narrow.
- Ethics. Serious breaches: deception, lack of informed consent, psychological harm and pressure that undermined the right to withdraw, partly offset by a thorough debrief.
Examples in context
Example 1. Placing the study in the social area. The social area assumes that behaviour is shaped by other people and the surrounding situation. Milgram fits perfectly: the presence of a legitimate authority, the prestige of Yale and the gradual escalation of demands produced obedience that the participants would never have predicted of themselves. This is why OCR uses Milgram to illustrate how powerfully social context overrides personal conscience.
Example 2. The contrast with the contemporary study. Milgram is paired with Bocchiaro et al. (2012), who studied disobedience and whistle-blowing. Comparing them shows how methods evolved (Bocchiaro used a more ethical design with a verbal rather than physical "harm") and how the focus shifted from why people obey to why and how some people resist, which is exactly the kind of classic-contemporary comparison the exam asks for.
Try this
Q1. State the percentage of Milgram's participants who gave the maximum 450-volt shock. [1 mark]
- Cue. 65 per cent (26 of 40).
Q2. Explain what is meant by the agentic state. [2 marks]
- Cue. A state in which a person sees themselves as an instrument carrying out the wishes of a legitimate authority, passing responsibility for their actions to that authority.
Q3. Outline one ethical weakness of Milgram's study. [2 marks]
- Cue. Participants were deceived about the shocks and the aim, so informed consent was impossible and they could not make a properly informed choice to take part.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
OCR 201910 marksDescribe the procedure and results of Milgram's (1963) study of obedience. [10 marks]Show worked answer →
A description item testing accurate knowledge of method and results (AO1).
Procedure: Milgram recruited 40 American men (aged 20 to 50) through a newspaper advert, paid 15450300$ volts, pounded the wall then fell silent. When the teacher hesitated, the experimenter used four standardised verbal prods ("please continue", "the experiment requires that you continue", and so on).
Results: all 40 participants continued to at least volts. per cent ( of ) administered the maximum volts. Many showed extreme tension, including sweating, trembling and nervous laughter. Milgram concluded that ordinary people will obey a legitimate authority even when ordered to harm an innocent person.
Markers reward an accurate procedure (rigged roles, confederate learner, shock generator, standardised prods) and the key findings (all to 300 volts, 65 per cent to 450 volts, signs of stress).
OCR 202115 marksDiscuss Milgram's (1963) obedience study in terms of its ethical considerations. [15 marks]Show worked answer →
An extended evaluation focused on ethics (AO3), with description used to support points.
Costs: deception (participants believed the shocks and the learner were real and that the study was about learning); breach of protection from harm (participants showed extreme stress, such as seizures of nervous laughter); the standardised prods arguably undermined the right to withdraw by pressuring participants to continue; and informed consent was not possible given the deception.
Defences and balance: Milgram debriefed participants fully, reunited them with the unharmed learner, and a follow-up found about 84 per cent were glad to have taken part. The deception was arguably necessary because telling participants the aim would have destroyed the study's validity, and a cost-benefit analysis weighs the distress against the major scientific insight into destructive obedience. The findings have real-world value (for example, understanding atrocities).
A strong answer reaches a judgement: the study seriously breached several BPS principles, but the controlled debrief, the impossibility of studying obedience without deception, and the scientific and social value partly mitigate this. Markers reward specific ethical issues tied to evidence, a counterargument, and a supported conclusion.
Related dot points
- Contemporary study: Bocchiaro et al. (2012), Disobedience and whistle-blowing. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and Milgram.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the contemporary social study, Bocchiaro et al. (2012) on disobedience and whistle-blowing. Covers the aim, scenario method, the obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing rates, the gap between predicted and actual behaviour, evaluation, and links to Milgram and the social area.
- Classic study: Piliavin et al. (1969), Good Samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and bystander behaviour.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the classic social study, Piliavin et al. (1969) on helping behaviour on the New York subway. Covers the aim, field-experiment method, the high helping rates, the cost-reward arousal model, the diffusion-of-responsibility findings, evaluation, and links to the social area and Levine.
- Contemporary study: Levine et al. (2001), Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and Piliavin.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the contemporary social study, Levine et al. (2001) on helping strangers in 23 cities. Covers the aim, cross-cultural field-experiment method, the three helping measures, the link to economic productivity and simpatia, evaluation, and links to Piliavin and the social area.
- Sampling methods, ethical considerations, reliability and validity, levels of measurement, and recording, analysing and presenting data.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to sampling and data handling, covering random, stratified, systematic, opportunity and self-selected sampling, BPS ethics, reliability and validity, levels of measurement, and how to record, analyse and present qualitative and quantitative data for Component 1.
- Classic study: Freud (1909), Analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy (Little Hans). Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the individual differences area and the psychodynamic perspective.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the classic individual differences study, Freud (1909) Little Hans. Covers the aim, the case-study method, the horse phobia, the Oedipus complex interpretation, evaluation of the psychodynamic perspective, and links to Baron-Cohen and the individual differences area.