Milgram (1963) Obedience — classic

Q: What is the difference between obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing?

Obedience is complying with direct orders from an authority figure; disobedience is refusing to comply; and whistle-blowing is reporting unethical or wrongful practices to an oversight body or higher authority.

Q: How did Bocchiaro et al. define and operationalize obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing?

Participants were obedient if they wrote the persuasive statement, disobedient if they refused to write it, and whistleblowers if they completed and posted the Research Committee ethics form (either open or closed).

Q: How does Bocchiaro et al. (2012) change or extend Milgram's (1963) classic study?

Bocchiaro et al. extended Milgram by introducing whistle-blowing , using a mixed-gender sample, examining non-physical/institutional harm, and formally testing personality traits via psychometric tools.

Psychology - H567 · Cambridge OCR A Level · 11 min read · Updated: 7 Sept 2026

Welcome to your comprehensive revision guide for OCR A Level Psychology (H567), Component 02: Psychological themes through core studies. In this chapter, we explore one of the most famous and fascinating questions in human behavior: Why do good people obey destructive orders, and what does it take to stand up or blow the whistle?

Don't worry if psychological studies feel overwhelming at first. We will break down every aim, procedure, numerical finding, and evaluation point into bite-sized, digestible steps. Let's dive in!

1. Key Concepts & Definitions

Before looking at the studies, let's understand the core psychological terms. Knowing these definitions precisely will earn you crucial marks in Section A and Section B questions.

• Obedience: Complying with direct orders given by a perceived legitimate authority figure (someone who has formal power or status over you).
• Disobedience: Refusing to comply with direct commands from an authority figure.
• Whistle-blowing: Reporting unethical, illegal, or wrongful practices to higher authorities, an ethics committee, or an oversight body, rather than simply refusing an order or openly confronting the authority.
• Situational Explanation: The belief that our behavior is driven by the external environment, social context, and situational pressures (e.g., being in a prestigious university or facing an authoritative experimenter).
• Dispositional (Individual) Explanation: The belief that our behavior is driven by internal factors, such as personality traits, moral character, or personal beliefs.

Everyday Analogy: Imagine a boss telling an employee to forge a financial document. If the employee signs it, that is obedience. If the employee says "No, I will not do that," that is disobedience. If the employee secretly sends the file to the company's independent integrity regulator, that is whistle-blowing!

Section Key Takeaway: Social psychology demonstrates that situational factors often override our internal moral compass when an authority figure tells us what to do.

2. The Classic Study: Milgram (1963)

Behavioral Study of Obedience

Why did ordinary citizens follow destructive orders during historical atrocities such as the Holocaust? Stanley Milgram set out to test whether destructive obedience was a unique personality flaw or a universal human response to situational pressure.

Aim

To investigate how obedient individuals would be to an authority figure who ordered them to deliver increasingly severe electric shocks to an innocent person, directly violating their moral conscience.

Design, Setting & Sample

• Design: Controlled laboratory procedure / observation conducted in a laboratory at Yale University. (Exam Alert: This was not an experiment because there was no independent variable or control group in the original 1963 baseline study!)
• Sample: $40$ males, aged $20$ to $50$ years, recruited through a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation (volunteer/self-selected sampling) from the New Haven area.
• Diversity of Backgrounds: The sample consisted of blue-collar workers ($37.5\%$), white-collar workers ($40\%$), and professionals ($22.5\%$), including postal clerks, teachers, salesmen, and engineers.
• Payment: Participants were paid $\$4.50$ just for showing up, and payment was not dependent on finishing the study.

The Apparatus & Setup

• The Shock Generator: A machine featuring $30$ toggle switches ranging from $15\text{V}$ (labeled "Slight Shock") to $450\text{V}$ (labeled "XXX"), increasing in $15\text{V}$ increments.
• Fixed Draw: A rigged draw ensured the genuine participant was always assigned the role of the Teacher, while the confederate (a mild-mannered $47$-year-old accountant named Mr. Wallace) was always the Learner.
• Sample Shock: The naive participant was given a real $45\text{V}$ sample shock to convince them the generator was genuine.

Procedure

The Teacher was instructed to teach word pairs to the Learner. If the Learner answered incorrectly, the Teacher had to administer an electric shock, moving one level ($15\text{V}$) higher for every single mistake.

The experimenter (wearing a grey technician's coat) stayed in the room. If the Teacher hesitated or showed reluctance, the experimenter delivered a sequence of standardized verbal prods in order:
1. "Please continue" or "Please go on."
2. "The experiment requires that you continue."
3. "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
4. "You have no other choice, you must go on."

Learner's Standardized Feedback: The Learner was strapped into an electric chair in an adjacent room. Up until $300\text{V}$, he gave no verbal protests. At $300\text{V}$, he pounded loudly on the wall and stopped answering. At $315\text{V}$, he pounded on the wall again and then remained completely silent for the remainder of the session.

Key Numerical Findings

• Prior Prediction: $14$ Yale psychology students estimated that only a tiny fraction (mean of $1.2\%$, ranging from $0\%$ to $3\%$) would deliver the maximum shock.
• At $300\text{V}$: $100\%$ ($40/40$) of participants obeyed orders and continued up to $300\text{V}$.
• At $450\text{V}$: $65\%$ ($26/40$) of participants went all the way to the maximum $450\text{V}$ shock level (fully obedient).
• Disobedience: $35\%$ ($14/40$) defied the experimenter and stopped between $300\text{V}$ and $375\text{V}$.
• Qualitative Signs of Extreme Tension: Participants exhibited sweating, trembling, groaning, biting lips, digging fingernails into their palms, nervous laughter ($14$ participants showed definite nervous laughing fits), and $3$ participants experienced full-blown uncontrollable seizures.

Section Key Takeaway: Milgram proved that situational context (e.g., the prestigious Yale setting, the perceived authority of the experimenter, and sequential incremental demands) has enormous power over personal conscience.

3. The Contemporary Study: Bocchiaro et al. (2012)

To defy or not to defy: An experimental study of the dynamics of disobedience and whistle-blowing

Milgram gave participants two choices: obey or disobey. Bocchiaro and colleagues wanted to investigate a third, often overlooked response: whistle-blowing. They also wanted to discover whether personality traits could predict who obeys or defies an unjust authority.

Aims

1. To investigate rates of obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing when faced with an ethically wrong request.
2. To compare people's predicted behavior (what they think they will do) with their actual behavior.
3. To test whether individual personality traits or social values predict who obeys, disobeys, or blows the whistle.

Design, Setting & Sample

• Design: Controlled laboratory study / experimental paradigm conducted at VU University in Amsterdam.
• Main Sample: $149$ undergraduate students ($96$ females, $53$ males; mean age = $20.8$ years). Recruited via cafeteria flyers in exchange for €$7$ cash or course credit. (Initial sample was $160$; $11$ were excluded due to high suspicion).
• Pilot Group: $92$ students across $8$ pilot tests to confirm the cover story was believable and ethically acceptable.
• Comparison Group: $138$ independent students asked to predict their own behavior and the behavior of an average student.

The Cover Story & Procedure

1. The Unjust Request: The experimenter presented a cover story about testing the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. He explained that previous participants experienced hallucinations and panic, but the researchers wanted to replicate the study on younger students.
2. The Task: The participant was asked to write an enthusiastic statement/testimonial persuading fellow students to participate. The text had to include at least two positive adjectives (such as exciting, incredible, great, or superb) and make no mention of negative effects.
3. The Isolation Period: The participant was left alone for $7$ minutes in a separate room containing:
    a) A computer to draft the persuasive text.
    b) A Research Committee form and a mailbox (which provided the option to report the study as unethical to the ethics board).
4. Psychometric Testing: Participants completed:
    • The HEXACO-PI-R (60-item) test measuring $6$ personality dimensions: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience.
    • The Decomposed Games Measure of Social Value Orientation (SVO: classified as Prosocial, Individualistic, or Competitive).
    • Self-reported measures of religious belief, practice, and depth of faith.

Participant Classifications

• Obedient: Wrote the persuasive statement.
• Disobedient: Refused to write the persuasive statement.
• Open Whistleblower: Refused to write the statement and completed the Research Committee form.
• Closed Whistleblower: Wrote the statement and completed the Research Committee form.

Key Numerical Findings

• Actual Behavior ($n = 149$):
    • Obedient: $76.5\%$ ($114/149$)
    • Disobedient: $14.1\%$ ($21/149$)
    • Whistleblowers: $9.4\%$ ($14/149$) — composed of $6.0\%$ closed whistleblowers ($9/149$) and $3.4\%$ open whistleblowers ($5/149$).

• Predicted Behavior by Comparison Group ($n = 138$):
• Self-Prediction: Only $3.6\%$ predicted they would obey; $31.9\%$ predicted they would disobey; $64.5\%$ predicted they would blow the whistle.
• Average Student Prediction: $18.8\%$ obey, $43.9\%$ disobey, $37.3\%$ whistle-blow.

• Personality & Value Results:
• No statistically significant differences were found between obedient, disobedient, and whistleblowing participants across any of the $6$ HEXACO personality traits or Social Value Orientations.
• Religious Faith: Participants with stronger/deeper religious faith showed a moderate tendency to blow the whistle.

Section Key Takeaway: People consistently overestimate their moral courage. While $64.5\%$ believe they would blow the whistle, only $9.4\%$ actually do so when placed in the situation. Personality traits do not reliably predict who defies authority.

4. Comparing Classic and Contemporary Studies

A central requirement of OCR Component 02 is understanding how the contemporary study extends or changes our understanding of the key theme: Responses to people in authority.

1. Expanding the Repertoire of Responses: Milgram only offered a binary choice (obey or disobey). Bocchiaro et al. introduced whistle-blowing, demonstrating how people handle institutional injustice without open confrontation.
2. Type of Harm: Milgram examined direct physical harm (apparent electric shocks); Bocchiaro et al. examined indirect psychological and institutional harm (deceiving peers into a risky study).
3. Gender Diversity: Milgram (1963) tested an all-male sample. Bocchiaro et al. tested a mixed-gender sample ($96$ females, $53$ males) and found obedience was equally high across genders.
4. Presence & Proximity of Authority: In Milgram, the experimenter remained in the room giving direct verbal prods. In Bocchiaro et al., the experimenter left the participant alone for $7$ minutes, showing that obedience continues even without direct surveillance.
5. Formal Testing of Personality: Milgram hypothesized that situational factors mattered more than personality, but did not formally test traits. Bocchiaro et al. administered standardized psychometric tests (HEXACO-PI-R and SVO), confirming empirically that personality does not easily predict obedience.

5. Methodological Evaluation & Core Debates

Let's look at how these studies link to the broader debates in the OCR specification:

Situational vs. Individual (Dispositional) Explanations

Both studies strongly support the situational explanation. In Milgram, the university setting, perceived legitimacy of the experimenter, and sequential prods drove $65\%$ to deliver $450\text{V}$. In Bocchiaro et al., the situational authority of the researcher produced $76.5\%$ obedience, despite psychometric tests showing no individual personality differences between obedient and defiant participants.

Ethical Considerations

• Deception: Both studies used deception (Milgram deceived about the aim and shocks; Bocchiaro deceived about the sensory deprivation study). However, deception was essential to avoid demand characteristics.
• Protection from Harm: Milgram placed participants under severe emotional distress (trembling, sweating, seizures). Bocchiaro et al. minimized stress by using a lower-stakes psychological task and conducted $8$ pilot tests to verify ethical acceptability.
• Right to Withdraw: In Milgram, the verbal prods made it difficult for participants to exercise their right to withdraw. In Bocchiaro, participants were left alone and could choose whether to complete the task.

Ethnocentrism & Sampling

• Milgram's sample was limited to American men from New Haven, reflecting Western cultural norms of authority in the 1960s.
• Bocchiaro et al. tested Dutch university students in 2012. The fact that obedience remained high ($76.5\%$) suggests that obedience to authority is not restricted to a single country, gender, or era.

Links to the Social Area

Both studies sit squarely within the Social Area because they demonstrate that an individual's behavior, moral decisions, and compliance are significantly shaped by the actual, implied, or imagined presence of authority figures and institutional settings.

6. Common Exam Pitfalls & Examiner Tips

Make sure you avoid these common student mistakes in your exam:

• Pitfall 1: Calling Milgram's study an "Experiment".
Correction: Milgram's baseline 1963 study had no independent variable and no control condition; it was a controlled observation.

• Pitfall 2: Confusing the Learner's feedback points.
Correction: In Milgram, the Learner pounded on the wall at $300\text{V}$, pounded once more at $315\text{V}$, and then ceased responding entirely. He did not yell continuously throughout the switches.

• Pitfall 3: Mixing up Bocchiaro's actual findings with the prediction group.
Correction: In Bocchiaro et al., $76.5\%$ actually obeyed, $14.1\%$ disobeyed, and $9.4\%$ blew the whistle. Do not confuse these real numbers with the comparison group's prediction ($3.6\%$ obey, $64.5\%$ whistle-blow).

• Pitfall 4: Confusing Disobedience with Whistle-blowing.
Correction: Refusing to write the text is disobedience. Whistle-blowing requires actively filling out and posting the Research Committee form. A participant who wrote the text and posted the form was a closed whistleblower.

• Pitfall 5: Claiming that agreeable or honest people were less obedient in Bocchiaro.
Correction: The HEXACO personality inventory and SVO scores showed no statistically significant relationship to obedience, disobedience, or whistle-blowing.

7. Quick Revision Checkpoint

Milgram (1963) Quick Memory Card:
• Sample: $40$ American males, aged $20$–$50$, paid $\$4.50$.
• Voltage: $15\text{V}$ to $450\text{V}$ ($15\text{V}$ steps); $45\text{V}$ sample shock.
• Result: $100\%$ reached $300\text{V}$; $65\%$ reached $450\text{V}$ (fully obedient); $35\%$ disobedient.

Bocchiaro et al. (2012) Quick Memory Card:
• Sample: $149$ Dutch students ($96$ females, $53$ males), paid €$7$ or credit.
• Task: Write persuasive text for sensory deprivation study or post ethics form within $7$ minutes.
• Actual Results: $76.5\%$ obeyed, $14.1\%$ disobeyed, $9.4\%$ whistle-blowers ($6.0\%$ closed, $3.4\%$ open).
• Prediction vs Reality: People expected $64.5\%$ whistle-blowing, but only $9.4\%$ blew the whistle.
• Personality (HEXACO/SVO): No significant correlation with response type; deeper religious faith showed a moderate link to whistle-blowing.

Quick check

Can you answer these now?

Open each question to check the key ideas from this chapter.

What is the difference between obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing?

Obedience is complying with direct orders from an authority figure; disobedience is refusing to comply; and whistle-blowing is reporting unethical or wrongful practices to an oversight body or higher authority.

What was the primary aim and research method of Stanley Milgram's (1963) baseline study?

Milgram aimed to investigate obedience to an authority figure ordering participants to deliver increasingly severe electric shocks to an innocent person, using a controlled laboratory observation.

What was the sample and sampling method used in Milgram (1963)?

The sample consisted of $40$ males, aged $20$ to $50$ years, from diverse occupational backgrounds, recruited from the New Haven area via newspaper advertisements and direct mail (self-selected/volunteer sampling).

What standardized verbal prods and Learner feedback were used in Milgram's procedure?

The experimenter used a sequence of 4 standardized prods (e.g., "Please continue" to "You have no other choice, you must go on"), while the Learner banged on the wall at $300\text{V}$ and $315\text{V}$ before going completely silent.

What were the key quantitative and qualitative findings of Milgram (1963)?

$100\%$ of participants reached $300\text{V}$ and $65\%$ ($26/40$) obeyed fully up to $450\text{V}$, with many showing signs of extreme tension such as sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and seizures.

What were the aims and sample of Bocchiaro et al.'s (2012) contemporary study?

The study investigated rates of obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing to an unethical request, using a sample of $149$ Dutch undergraduate students ($96$ females, $53$ males) at VU University in Amsterdam.

How did Bocchiaro et al. define and operationalize obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing?

Participants were obedient if they wrote the persuasive statement, disobedient if they refused to write it, and whistleblowers if they completed and posted the Research Committee ethics form (either open or closed).

How did actual behavior compare to predicted behavior in Bocchiaro et al. (2012)?

While $64.5\%$ of comparison participants predicted they would blow the whistle and only $3.6\%$ predicted they would obey, in reality $76.5\%$ obeyed and only $9.4\%$ blew the whistle.

Did personality traits or social values predict obedience or whistle-blowing in Bocchiaro et al.?

No statistically significant differences were found across any of the $6$ HEXACO personality dimensions or Social Value Orientations, though participants with deeper religious faith showed a moderate tendency to blow the whistle.

How does Bocchiaro et al. (2012) change or extend Milgram's (1963) classic study?

Bocchiaro et al. extended Milgram by introducing whistle-blowing, using a mixed-gender sample, examining non-physical/institutional harm, and formally testing personality traits via psychometric tools.

Ready to test yourself?

Turn these notes into exam-style practice. Get unlimited AI questions on this topic with instant marking and explanations.

Practise This Topic

More Psychology - H567 chapters

* The content provided by thinka is generated by AI and may not always be accurate or up-to-date. Please use it as a supplementary resource and verify with official materials.

Put These Notes into Practice

Reading the notes is a great start. Now practise with unlimited AI-generated questions and get instant feedback. 100,000+ students are already improving their grades.

Start Practising Now View Pricing

Done reading? Test yourself with AI practice questions

Practise This Topic Now

Mastering Social Psychology: Responses to People in Authority

1. Key Concepts & Definitions

2. The Classic Study: Milgram (1963)

Behavioral Study of Obedience

Aim

Design, Setting & Sample

The Apparatus & Setup

Procedure

Key Numerical Findings

3. The Contemporary Study: Bocchiaro et al. (2012)

To defy or not to defy: An experimental study of the dynamics of disobedience and whistle-blowing

Aims

Design, Setting & Sample

The Cover Story & Procedure

Participant Classifications

Key Numerical Findings

4. Comparing Classic and Contemporary Studies

5. Methodological Evaluation & Core Debates

Situational vs. Individual (Dispositional) Explanations

Ethical Considerations

Ethnocentrism & Sampling

Links to the Social Area

6. Common Exam Pitfalls & Examiner Tips

7. Quick Revision Checkpoint

Can you answer these now?

Ready to test yourself?

More Psychology - H567 chapters

Put These Notes into Practice