Welcome to the Social Area: Responses to People in Authority
Welcome to your OCR AS Level Psychology revision notes for the Social Area. In this topic, we explore one of the most fascinating themes in psychology: Responses to people in authority. Have you ever wondered why people follow orders, even when they know what they are being asked to do is wrong? Or why it is so difficult to speak up against an unfair rule?
To understand this theme, OCR requires you to master two core studies:
1. Classic Study: Milgram (1963) – Behavioral Study of Obedience
2. Contemporary Study: Bocchiaro et al. (2012) – Obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing
Don't worry if psychological terminology feels heavy at first. We will break down every single concept step-by-step so that you feel fully confident for your Component 02 (H167/02) exam.
---What is the Social Area? (Core Assumptions)
Before jumping into the studies, it helps to understand the "lens" social psychologists look through. The core assumption of the Social Area is:
Core Assumption: Human behavior is significantly influenced by the social situation and the presence of others (whether that presence is actual, imagined, or implied).
Everyday Analogy: Think about how you behave when you are completely alone in your bedroom versus when a teacher or police officer is standing right in front of you. Your behavior shifts dramatically due to the social context—this is exactly what the social area investigates.
---Core Study 1 (Classic): Milgram (1963)
1. Background and Aim
Background: Following World War II and the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, psychologists debated why so many people carried out horrific orders. Was there something inherently different about the German people (an individual/dispositional explanation), or could anyone obey destructive orders under the right circumstances (a situational explanation)?
Aim: To investigate the level of obedience shown when an authority figure ordered participants to deliver electric shocks to an innocent person.
2. Research Method & Sample
Method: Controlled observation in a laboratory setting.
Exam Alert: Do NOT call this a "laboratory experiment." In the original 1963 study, there was no comparison group and no Independent Variable (IV). Calling it a lab experiment will cost you marks!
Sample:
• 40 males aged 20–50 years old.
• Recruited from the New Haven area via newspaper advertisements and direct mail.
• Broad range of occupations (from postal clerks to engineers, high school dropouts to professionals).
• Paid \$4.50 simply for arriving at the lab (the money was theirs regardless of what happened next).
3. Step-by-Step Procedure
Step 1 – The Setup: The participant arrived at Yale University and met the experimenter (wearing a stern grey lab coat) and another "participant" named Mr. Wallace (who was actually a confederate/actor). A rigged draw took place so that the real participant was always assigned the role of the "Teacher" and Mr. Wallace was always the "Learner".
Step 2 – The Shock Generator: The Learner was strapped into an "electric chair" in an adjoining room. The Teacher was placed in front of a shock generator with 30 switches ranging from 15V to 450V in 15V increments, with labels ranging from "Slight Shock" up to "Danger: Severe Shock" and finally "XXX" (at 435V–450V). The Teacher received a real sample shock of 45V to convince them the machine was genuine.
Step 3 – The Task: The Teacher read word pairs to the Learner over an intercom. Every time the Learner made an error, the Teacher had to administer an electric shock, moving up 15V each time. (In reality, no shocks were delivered; the Learner's responses and protests were pre-recorded or standardized audio).
Step 4 – The Prods: If the participant hesitated or wanted to stop, the experimenter gave four standardized verbal prods in sequence:
• Prod 1: "Please continue" or "Please go on."
• Prod 2: "The experiment requires that you continue."
• Prod 3: "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
• Prod 4: "You have no other choice, you must go on."
4. Key Findings (Results vs. Conclusions)
Quantitative Results (The Numbers):
• 100% of participants continued to 300V.
• 65% (26 out of 40 participants) obeyed fully and delivered the maximum 450V.
Qualitative Results (Observations):
• Participants showed extreme signs of nervous tension and distress: sweating, trembling, groaning, digging fingernails into their flesh, nervous laughing fits, and 3 participants experienced full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
Conclusions:
• Situational factors exert a powerful influence over individual morality: ordinary people will obey destructive orders from a perceived legitimate authority figure in a prestigious setting.
• The "Germans are different" hypothesis is false; obedience was far higher than predicted.
Examiner Pitfalls for Milgram (1963)
• Pitfall 1: Confusing Results with Conclusions. "65% went to 450V" is a result (data). "People obey authority due to situational pressures" is a conclusion.
• Pitfall 2: Describing the sample as "students." Milgram used adult men from the community with diverse jobs.
Core Study 2 (Contemporary): Bocchiaro et al. (2012)
1. Background and Aim
Background: Milgram investigated obedience to physical harm. But what happens in modern workplace or academic settings where harm is psychological or ethical? Furthermore, how do people respond when given an opportunity to blow the whistle on an authority figure?
Aim:
1. To investigate rates of obedience, disobedience, and whistleblowing in an unethical situation involving no physical harm.
2. To investigate whether personality traits (assessed by the HEXACO-PI-R test) predict obedient, disobedient, or whistleblowing behavior.
3. To compare actual behavior to what people think they would do.
2. Research Method & Sample
Method: Controlled observation / laboratory procedure (carried out at VU University in Amsterdam).
Sample:
• 149 undergraduate students (96 women, 53 men; mean age = 23.2 years).
• Recruited via flyers posted in the university cafeteria.
• Received either €7 or course credit for taking part.
3. Step-by-Step Procedure
Step 1 – The Cover Story: A formal, stern male experimenter met each participant and presented a cover story about researching sensory deprivation on brain function. He claimed that previous participants had found it a traumatic and frightening experience, but he wanted to repeat it on younger students.
Step 2 – The Unethical Request: The experimenter asked the participant to write a positive statement to convince fellow students to take part. They were instructed to use enthusiastic adjectives such as "exciting," "incredible," and "superb," and were strictly forbidden from mentioning the negative effects.
Step 3 – The Room & Decision: The participant was moved to a second room with a computer to type the statement, a mailbox, and forms for the Human Ethics Committee. They were left alone for 7 minutes to decide what to do:
• Option A: Obey – Type the enthusiastic statement endorsing the harmful study.
• Option B: Disobey – Refuse to write the statement.
• Option C: Whistleblow – Complete an ethics complaint form and place it in the Human Ethics Committee mailbox (either writing the statement or not).
Step 4 – Personality Testing: After the 7 minutes, participants completed personality tests, including the HEXACO-PI-R (measuring Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience) and tests on social value orientation.
4. Key Findings (Results vs. Conclusions)
Quantitative Results:
• Obedient: 76.5% (114/149) wrote the statement.
• Disobedient: 14.1% (21/149) refused.
• Whistleblowers: 9.4% (14/149) reported the researcher to the ethics board.
• Personality Scores: There were no significant differences in HEXACO personality traits between obedient, disobedient, or whistleblowing individuals.
Comparison with Predictions: When a separate comparison group was asked what they would do, only 3.6% believed they would obey, 31.9% thought they would disobey, and 64.5% thought they would blow the whistle. Actual behavior was the exact opposite!
Conclusions:
• People are extremely inaccurate at predicting their own or others' behavior in unethical situations.
• There is a massive gap between moral intentions and actual actions.
• Obedience is the default response to authority, even when the request is ethically unacceptable.
Examiner Pitfalls for Bocchiaro et al. (2012)
• Pitfall 1: Confusing disobedience with whistleblowing. Disobedience is simply saying "no" or refusing to write the letter. Whistleblowing is actively using the formal reporting system (the ethics committee mailbox).
• Pitfall 2: Claiming that personality predicted behavior. Remember: personality (HEXACO) showed no significant relationship to whether people obeyed, disobeyed, or blew the whistle.
Comparing the Two Core Studies (Theme: Responses to Authority)
When answering exam questions on Component 02, you will often need to show how these studies link together within the Social Area.
Similarities:
• High Obedience Rates: Both studies demonstrated unexpectedly high levels of obedience to an authority figure (Milgram: 65%; Bocchiaro: 76.5%).
• Situational Influence: Both concluded that the social situation has a much stronger influence on human behavior than individual disposition or personality.
• Controlled Lab Settings: Both used controlled observational methods in prestigious university settings (Yale University vs. VU University Amsterdam).
Differences:
• Type of Request / Harm: Milgram investigated obedience to inflict direct physical harm (electric shocks); Bocchiaro investigated obedience involving ethical/psychological deception (recruiting others to a traumatic study).
• Sample Composition: Milgram studied only male adults (aged 20–50) from the general public; Bocchiaro studied male and female undergraduate students.
• Options Available: Milgram only offered obedience or disobedience; Bocchiaro introduced a third behavioral path: whistleblowing.
Quick Revision Summary Box
Theme: Responses to people in authority (Social Area)
Milgram (1963):
• Sample: 40 men (aged 20–50, New Haven)
• Method: Controlled observation
• Apparatus: 15V to 450V shock generator
• Key Stat: 100% went to 300V; 65% reached 450V
• Main Takeaway: Situational pressures cause destructive obedience.
Bocchiaro et al. (2012):
• Sample: 149 university students (96 females, 53 males)
• Method: Controlled observation
• Key Stat: 76.5% obeyed, 14.1% disobeyed, 9.4% blew the whistle
• Main Takeaway: Large gap between predicted behavior and actual behavior; HEXACO personality traits do not predict obedience.