Milgram's Obedience Study: OCR AS Psychology Core Study Explained
This work has been verified by our teacher: 22.01.2026 at 9:47
Homework type: Analysis
Added: 19.01.2026 at 12:34
Summary:
Explore Milgram’s Obedience Study for OCR AS Psychology and understand key theories, methodology, and the impact of authority on human behaviour.
OCR AS Psychology: Core Studies – Milgram (1)
Obedience to authority—how ordinary individuals respond when instructed by a recognised authority figure—has long been a subject of intrigue within social psychology, notably after the atrocities committed during the Second World War. Stanley Milgram’s seminal obedience study, conducted at Yale University in the early 1960s, represents a pivotal moment in the field, standing at the crossroads of psychological theory, ethical controversy, and enduring relevance. The context of his research, entwined with global efforts to comprehend how the Holocaust occurred, provided the impetus for unveiling the powerful situational forces that can override personal conscience. This essay will critically examine Milgram’s classic study with particular reference to its historical context, theoretical underpinnings, aims, and methodology. The argument will highlight how Milgram’s design fundamentally challenged prevailing notions about obedience by demonstrating the profound impact that situational factors can have on human behaviour.
I. Historical and Theoretical Background
The ‘Germans Are Different’ Hypothesis
After the end of the Second World War, the world was left grappling with the horror of Nazi crimes. Amongst the many explanations proposed for widespread complicity in such acts, the so-called ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis held significant sway. This notion suggested that something intrinsic about the German character—their upbringing, national identity, or psychological disposition—made them uniquely vulnerable to obeying immoral or destructive orders. Here, the explanation of behaviour rested squarely on dispositional attributions: the idea that stable, internal characteristics such as personality or national heritage primarily motivate actions. For many, endorsing this theory offered a degree of psychological distance and reassurance, reinforcing the belief that such atrocities were the product of foreign influences and therefore outside the realm of ‘normal’ human behaviour.Milgram’s Critique and the Rise of Situational Explanations
Stanley Milgram, educated in the traditions of British and European social science as well as American psychology, approached these explanations with scepticism. Rather than attributing obedience to unchangeable personal qualities, he was convinced that situational factors—those forces present in a particular environment—were the primary architects of human behaviour. In his view, any ordinary person, given the ‘right’ set of circumstances, might find themselves acting in ways that contradicted their moral compass. In contesting the overemphasis on disposition, Milgram championed the concept of situational attributions. Behaviour, he argued, arose less from within, and more from social context, authority structures, and external pressures.This conceptual shift echoed broader changes in the field during the 1950s and 1960s, a period characterised by seminal research into social influence. For instance, Solomon Asch’s conformity studies in the United States and analogous research in Britain, such as Jenness’s early work on group norms, highlighted the persuasive power of majority opinion. However, while conformity research focused on peer influences, Milgram set out to interrogate the dynamics of obedience to official authority—especially in contexts where compliance conflicted with individual conscience.
Social Influence and Obedience
Within British education, students are frequently introduced to core social psychological concepts such as authority, conformity, and compliance via readings from texts like “Social Psychology” by Michael Argyle or introductory discussions in A-level psychology. Authority’s legitimacy—deeply embedded in societal structures, from the classroom to the legal system—makes explorations of obedience particularly relevant within the UK context, where notions of duty, class, and social order are historically pronounced. By addressing the effects of authority figures in experimental settings, Milgram’s research built on a tradition of questioning how society constructs and enforces its moral boundaries.II. Aims and Research Questions of Milgram’s Study
Primary Aim
Milgram set out with a deceptively straightforward aim: to investigate the extent to which ordinary men would be willing to obey instructions from an authority figure, even when such instructions might conflict with personal conscience and inflict harm upon an innocent person.Hypotheses
Behind this aim lay two crucial hypotheses. Firstly, Milgram predicted that most people, when placed under sufficient situational pressures, would demonstrate surprisingly high levels of obedience by delivering increasingly severe ‘electric shocks’ to another individual at the urging of an authority. Secondly, he hypothesised that it was contextual variables—the specific features of the immediate environment and the authority within it—rather than any intrinsic flaw or disposition, which explained the willingness to inflict harm.Contextual Relevance
The study aimed to empirically address the lingering question about whether Germans truly possessed a unique capacity for blind obedience, or whether all humans were susceptible in the ‘right’ circumstances. By utilising American participants within a controlled laboratory context, Milgram explicitly set out to challenge cultural stereotypes and move towards a universal explanation for obedience that transcended national boundaries.III. Methodology: Design and Procedure
Research Design
Milgram’s investigation did not neatly fit the mould of a classic experiment. Without a control group for comparison, his was more akin to a carefully controlled observational study, sometimes called a ‘behavioural experiment’. Participants responded to a scenario set up with remarkable consistency, making the study highly standardised but limiting its experimental range. Still, the controlled laboratory setting at Yale conferred both scientific credibility and a sense of legitimate authority, which would prove central to the study’s findings.Participants
A total of forty men, ranging from 20 to 50 in age and drawn from the New Haven area, took part as volunteers. Recruitment ads and postal invitations invited men from a variety of occupational and social backgrounds to participate in what they believed was a study on memory and learning, for a modest financial reward. This volunteer sample ensured a mix of professions, from teachers and postmen to engineers and salesmen, lending at least a veneer of generalisability. However, the all-male, self-selecting nature of the group meant that the results were primarily reflective of a particular subset of the population, with volunteer bias potentially amplifying certain personality traits or attitudes towards authority.Apparatus and Role Allocation
On arrival, each participant was introduced to a confederate, ostensibly another volunteer, and an experimenter in a white lab coat to evoke credibility. Roles of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ were allegedly allocated by drawing slips from a hat, though this process was rigged so that the participant always became the ‘teacher’, and the confederate—Mr Wallace—always the ‘learner’. The shock generator, an imposing piece of equipment festooned with voltages from 15 to 450 volts, with switches labelled from ‘Slight Shock’ to ‘Danger: Severe Shock’, created an atmosphere both sinister and convincing. The ‘teacher’ was to administer a shock of increasing power each time the ‘learner’ made an error on a word-pairing task.The experimenter, played by a stern figure in a grey lab coat, supplied standardised prods such as “Please continue” or “The experiment requires that you continue” to encourage compliance whenever the participant hesitated.
Procedure
The participant was told the purpose of the study related to understanding the effect of punishment on learning. To further the deception, participants watched the ‘learner’ (confederate) be strapped into a chair and had an example shock administered to themselves, adding realism to the process. During the task, each incorrect answer from the ‘learner’ (who in reality was not being shocked at all, but merely acting out discomfort and distress through a tape recording) prompted the ‘teacher’ to administer the next shock on the machine. As the shocks escalated, the ‘learner’s’ protests became more desperate, culminating in ominous silence, after which the teacher was directed to treat non-response as another incorrect answer.The sterile yet prestigious environment of Yale’s laboratory, distilled authority in physical surroundings and persona, and the use of scientific paraphernalia all contributed to a powerful sense of legitimacy that bore heavily on the participants’ willingness to obey.
IV. Ethical Considerations in Milgram’s Method
Deception
Milgram’s methodology rested fundamentally upon deception. The ‘teachers’ genuinely believed in the legitimacy and purpose of the experiment, as well as the authenticity of the shocks. Social science in the early 1960s operated under looser ethical strictures compared to today’s British Psychological Society protocols, but nonetheless, the necessity of misleading participants to observe authentic behaviour became a significant point of contention.Psychological Harm
As the study progressed, many participants displayed visible signs of anxiety—sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and at times, outright refusal to continue. While no physical harm befell the ‘learner’, the psychological burden carried by the ‘teacher’ was heavy. The emotional strain and distress caused to participants is widely considered the principal ethical failing of the research, igniting subsequent debates about the protection of subjects in psychological enquiry.Informed Consent and Debriefing
While participants consented to take part in what was described as a memory experiment, they could not provide fully informed consent, given the realities of the task were hidden from them. To remedy this, Milgram conducted thorough debriefings, explaining the true nature of the experiment, revealing that no actual shocks had been administered and offering reassurance regarding their behaviour. Some participants received follow-up contact to further mitigate any adverse consequences. Nonetheless, contemporary standards would fault the study for inadequate protections at the outset.V. Critical Evaluation of Methodology
Strengths
Despite these concerns, Milgram’s study had considerable strengths. The realistic scenario and authority-charged context fostered behaviour that closely mirrored obedience in real life, granting ecological validity unusual for laboratory studies. The high degree of control over variables, such as the precise wording of prompts and the timing of events, boosted the reliability and replicability of the findings. Meanwhile, the study’s provocative design opened new avenues for understanding how societal structures and authority influence behaviour.Limitations
In contrast, several limitations must be recognised. The sample’s restricted demographic—males only, all volunteers, from a single region—cast doubt upon the breadth of the study’s conclusions. Subsequent replications, both in the UK and elsewhere, have suggested gender, class, and cultural differences in responses to authority. The absence of a control group limited opportunities for direct comparison, although Milgram’s later ‘variation’ studies attempted to address this. Finally, the heavy reliance on deception and the resultant psychological distress triggered a longstanding ethical debate, with many arguing that the ends did not justify the means and that the research could never be conducted in this form under contemporary ethical regulations.Conclusion
Milgram’s study stands as a landmark in the history of psychology, marking a radical departure from personality-based explanations of destructive obedience and shining a critical light on the sway that social structures and authority can wield over the individual. His method—painstakingly crafted to draw out genuine reactions to an authoritative figure—set the standard for rigour in behavioural research while simultaneously exposing the tensions between scientific discovery and ethical responsibility. The controversy and acclaim surrounding Milgram’s work have left a deep imprint on the study of psychology in the United Kingdom, guiding both the development of research ethics and the understanding of the roots of human behaviour. Subsequent research would build upon, critique, and reinterpret these findings, but the central lesson remains: under sufficient situational pressure, the boundaries of ordinary behaviour are distressingly malleable—a reality relevant as much in contemporary British society as it was in the shadow of post-war Europe.Example questions
The answers have been prepared by our teacher
What is the historical context of Milgram's Obedience Study in OCR AS Psychology?
Milgram's study was conducted in response to questions about why ordinary people obeyed authority figures during the atrocities of World War II, challenging the view that only certain nationalities were predisposed to obedience.
What was the main aim of Milgram's Obedience Study according to OCR AS Psychology Core Study?
The main aim was to investigate how far ordinary men would obey authority figures, even when instructed to perform actions conflicting with their conscience.
How did Milgram's Obedience Study challenge the 'Germans are different' hypothesis?
Milgram argued that situational factors, not inherent national traits, explain obedience, showing that anyone might obey dangerous orders under certain circumstances.
What is the significance of situational factors in Milgram's Obedience Study for OCR AS Psychology students?
Situational factors were found to be more influential in obedience than personality traits, highlighting social context and authority as key determinants of behaviour.
How does Milgram's Obedience Study differ from Asch's conformity research in OCR AS Psychology?
Milgram focused on obedience to authority figures, while Asch's research examined conformity to group norms and peer influence.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in