Obedience: WACE Year 12 Psychology Unit 4
“Explain obedience to authority and the factors that influence it, with reference to Milgram's experiments and their ethical evaluation”
Obedience is complying with a direct order from an authority figure; Milgram's experiments showed that about 65 percent of ordinary participants would deliver what they believed were lethal electric shocks when ordered to by an experimenter, and obedience rose with the authority's legitimacy and proximity and fell when the victim was close or the authority was absent.
Jump to a section
Obedience is not part of the SCSA Psychology ATAR Year 12 syllabus (Units 3 and 4, taught since 2024), so this page is not examined in the WACE Psychology ATAR exam. Obedience and Milgram (1963) are now in the Year 11 syllabus (Unit 2: Attitudes, stereotypes and social influence). The Year 12 course still examines the ethical guidelines used to judge studies like Milgram's: see psychological research and ethics.
What this dot point is asking
SCSA asks you to define obedience, distinguish it from conformity, describe Milgram's procedure and findings, explain the factors that affect obedience, and evaluate the ethics of the research. The marked skill is using Milgram's exact findings and applying the situational factors.
What obedience is
Obedience is changing behaviour in response to a direct order from a person in a position of authority. Unlike conformity, which is a response to peers of equal status, obedience involves a clear hierarchy and an explicit command. It is socially useful when authority is legitimate, but dangerous when people obey orders to cause harm.
Milgram's experiments
Stanley Milgram investigated how far people would go in obeying an authority figure. Participants were told they were in a study of learning and punishment. Acting as the teacher, each participant was instructed to deliver increasing electric shocks to a learner (a confederate) each time he answered incorrectly. The shock generator was labelled up to 450 volts, marked with danger warnings. No real shocks were given, but participants believed they were.
As the learner protested, screamed and then fell silent, many participants became distressed and wanted to stop, but the experimenter urged them to continue with prompts such as that the experiment required them to go on. About 65 percent of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts. The result shocked psychologists because the participants were ordinary people, not unusually cruel.
Milgram proposed that obedient participants entered an agentic state, in which they saw themselves as agents carrying out the wishes of the authority and so felt the authority, not themselves, was responsible for the consequences. This shift of responsibility helps explain how decent people can perform harmful acts.
Factors affecting obedience
Milgram's many variations identified situational factors that change obedience.
- Legitimacy of authority: obedience was higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat and the study ran at a prestigious university, and lower in a rundown office.
- Proximity of the authority: obedience fell when the experimenter gave orders by telephone rather than in person.
- Proximity of the victim: obedience fell as the learner became more present, dropping further when the teacher had to place the learner's hand on a shock plate.
- Presence of disobedient peers: when confederates refused to continue, obedience collapsed, because their defiance gave the participant a model for resistance.
In Milgram's baseline study about two-thirds of participants administered the full 450-volt shock, despite believing it could be lethal. This figure is the headline finding and should be paired with the situational factors that raised or lowered it.
Ethical evaluation
Milgram's research is famous partly for its ethical problems. Participants were deceived about the true aim and the shocks, experienced severe distress, and may have felt their right to withdraw was undermined by the experimenter's prompts. Milgram defended the work by debriefing participants, surveying them afterwards (most said they were glad to have taken part), and arguing the findings were too important to obtain otherwise. The study is now used to illustrate why informed consent, the right to withdraw and protection from harm matter.
Why obedience changes
Imagine repeating Milgram's study but having the experimenter leave the room and issue orders by phone, while the learner sits in the same room as the teacher.
Two factors now push obedience down: the authority's proximity is reduced (orders by phone are easier to resist) and the victim's proximity is increased (the suffering is harder to ignore). A precise answer predicts lower obedience and names both situational factors.
Why obedience matters
Obedience research helps explain atrocities, workplace misconduct and following harmful orders, while also showing that situational factors, not just personality, drive behaviour. It informs training that encourages people to question illegitimate authority and to recognise the agentic state.
- Confusing obedience with conformity
- Obedience follows a direct order from authority; conformity yields to peer pressure of equal status.
- Misquoting the figure
- About 65 percent went to the maximum 450 volts, and no real shocks were delivered.
- Treating obedience as a personality trait
- Milgram's variations show obedience is largely situational, driven by authority legitimacy and proximity.
- Ignoring the ethics
- A complete answer evaluates deception, distress and the right to withdraw, and notes Milgram's debriefing and follow-up.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of SCSA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Original6 marksDescribe Milgram's obedience experiment and its main finding, and explain the agentic state as an explanation for the result.Show worked answer →
A 6 mark response needs the procedure, the finding, and the agentic state.
- Procedure
- Participants, in the teacher role, were instructed by an experimenter to deliver increasing electric shocks to a learner (a confederate) for wrong answers, up to a 450-volt level marked with danger warnings. No real shocks were given, but participants believed they were.
- Finding
- Despite the learner's protests and silence, about 65 percent of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts when prompted by the experimenter.
- Agentic state
- Milgram argued obedient participants entered an agentic state, seeing themselves as agents carrying out the authority's wishes and so feeling the authority, not themselves, was responsible. This shift of responsibility helps explain how ordinary people performed harmful acts.
Markers reward the procedure, the 65 percent figure, and a correct account of the agentic state.
Original8 marksExplain the situational factors that affect obedience using Milgram's variations, and evaluate the ethics of his research.Show worked answer →
An 8 mark extended response needs the situational factors plus an ethical evaluation.
- Situational factors
- Legitimacy of authority: obedience was higher with a lab coat at a prestigious university, lower in a rundown office. Proximity of authority: obedience fell when orders were given by telephone. Proximity of the victim: obedience fell as the learner became more present, dropping further when the teacher had to place the learner's hand on a plate. Presence of disobedient peers: when confederates refused, obedience collapsed.
- Ethical evaluation
- The study breached protection from harm (severe distress), used deception (no real shocks, false purpose), and weakened the right to withdraw (the experimenter's prods). Against this, Milgram debriefed participants and surveyed them afterwards, with most glad to have taken part, and argued the findings were important.
- Conclusion
- Markers reward several situational factors and a balanced ethical judgement that names specific principles rather than just calling the study unethical.