Situational variables affecting obedience | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
Updated: Sep 8
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 40 minutes
These Situational variables affecting obedience A-Level Psychology revision notes examine how the immediate social environment can make obedience more or less likely. You will learn how Milgram investigated obedience and how proximity and location affected participants’ behaviour. You will also explore how uniform can make authority appear more legitimate. This lesson develops your understanding of the agentic state and legitimacy of authority and prepares you to compare situational explanations with dispositional accounts of obedience.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Describe the main features of Milgram’s research into obedience.
Explain how proximity between the participant, authority and victim can affect obedience.
Explain how the location of an order can affect its perceived legitimacy.
Explain how uniform can influence obedience.
Apply situational variables to unfamiliar obedience scenarios.
Evaluate research into situational variables affecting obedience.
Revision Notes đź“š
Situational variables affecting obedience A-Level Psychology revision overview
A situational variable is a feature of the immediate social environment that affects a person’s behaviour.
The AQA specification identifies three situational variables affecting obedience:
Proximity
Location
Uniform
Milgram investigated the effects of proximity and location by changing parts of his obedience procedure and observing whether obedience increased or decreased.
Uniform can influence obedience because it acts as a visible symbol of authority and status.
These explanations are situational because they focus on the circumstances surrounding the individual rather than stable characteristics within the person.
What is obedience?
Obedience is a form of social influence in which a person follows a direct order from someone they regard as an authority figure.
Obedience differs from conformity:
Obedience | Conformity |
Involves a direct order | Involves group pressure |
Usually involves a difference in status | May occur between people of similar status |
An authority figure expects a particular action | A group influences behaviour or beliefs |
The person knows what they are being instructed to do | The pressure may be direct or indirect |
The central question in Milgram’s research was whether an ordinary person would continue following an authority figure’s instructions when those instructions appeared to harm another person.
Milgram’s research into obedience
Milgram used a controlled laboratory procedure to investigate obedience to authority.
Participants were told that the investigation concerned learning. Roles were arranged so that the genuine participant acted as the teacher, while another person acted as the learner.
The learner was working with the researcher. This person was therefore a confederate, although the genuine participant did not know this.
The procedure
The teacher was instructed to test the learner and administer an electric shock whenever the learner gave an incorrect answer.
The shock level increased as the procedure continued. Although no real shocks were delivered, the participant believed that the equipment was genuine.
As the apparent shock level increased, the learner protested and eventually stopped responding. If the participant hesitated or asked to stop, the experimenter used verbal instructions encouraging them to continue.
The main measure of obedience was how far the participant continued through the procedure.
The basic roles
Person | Role in the investigation |
Participant | Acted as the teacher and administered apparent shocks |
Learner | A confederate who appeared to receive the shocks |
Experimenter | The authority figure who instructed the participant to continue |
Milgram’s research demonstrated that many participants continued obeying the experimenter despite showing conflict or concern.
The investigation also provided a basic procedure that Milgram could alter. By changing one feature at a time, he examined how particular situational variables affected obedience.
Milgram’s variations
A variation is a modified version of a research procedure.
Milgram changed features of his basic obedience study to investigate whether obedience depended on the situation. These changes included:
Moving the learner closer to the teacher.
moving the experimenter further away from the teacher.
Changing the setting in which the study took place.
The behaviour required of the participant remained broadly similar, allowing Milgram to compare obedience across different conditions.
This use of controlled variations connects with manipulating independent variables and measuring dependent variables.
Proximity as a situational variable
Proximity means physical or psychological closeness.
In obedience research, proximity can refer to:
The distance between the participant and the authority figure.
The distance between the participant and the person affected by their actions.
Whether instructions are delivered face-to-face or remotely.
Whether the consequences of obedience are directly visible.
Milgram changed the proximity of both the learner and the experimenter.
Proximity between the participant and the learner
In the basic procedure, the participant and learner were physically separated.
Milgram altered this arrangement so that the teacher and learner were in the same room. Obedience decreased when the learner was closer.
In a further condition, the teacher had to make direct physical contact with the learner as part of the procedure. Obedience decreased further.
The overall relationship was:
As the learner became more physically immediate to the participant, obedience decreased.
Why does learner proximity affect obedience?
When the learner is distant:
The consequences of the participant’s actions are less immediate.
The participant can distance themselves from the apparent harm.
The experimenter’s instructions may dominate the situation.
When the learner is close:
The consequences of obedience become more difficult to ignore.
The participant is directly confronted with the effects of their actions.
It may become harder to place all responsibility on the authority.
The participant may be more likely to act autonomously and refuse.
Learner proximity can therefore reduce the participant’s ability to remain in an agentic state.
Proximity between the participant and the authority
Milgram also investigated what happened when the experimenter was no longer physically close to the participant.
When the experimenter left the room and issued instructions by telephone, obedience decreased.
The overall relationship was:
As the authority figure became less physically immediate, obedience decreased.
Why does authority proximity affect obedience?
A nearby authority figure can:
Monitor whether an instruction is followed.
Provide immediate pressure to continue.
Repeat an order when the individual hesitates.
Make their status and presence more difficult to ignore.
When the authority gives instructions remotely:
The social pressure is less immediate.
The person may feel less closely supervised.
The authority’s influence may be easier to resist.
The person may return to a more autonomous state.
This links directly to the difference between agentic and autonomous behaviour.
Comparing the two forms of proximity
Proximity change | Likely effect on obedience | Explanation |
Authority moves closer | Obedience is likely to increase | Direct pressure and supervision become stronger |
Authority moves further away | Obedience is likely to decrease | The authority’s influence becomes less immediate |
Victim moves closer | Obedience is likely to decrease | The consequences of the participant’s actions become more immediate |
Victim moves further away | Obedience is likely to increase | The participant can distance themselves from the consequences |
A useful memory rule is:
Closer authority, more obedience. Closer victim, less obedience.
This is a general pattern rather than a guarantee about how every person will behave.
Applying proximity to an unfamiliar situation
A senior manager instructs an employee face-to-face to remove a colleague from a project. The colleague works in another office, and the employee does not see their reaction.
Obedience may be relatively likely because:
The authority figure is physically close.
The manager can monitor the employee’s response.
The person affected by the decision is distant.
The consequences are not directly visible.
If the manager gave the order by email and the colleague was standing beside the employee, resistance might be more likely. The authority would be less immediate, while the person affected would be closer.
In an examination, explain both the situational detail and its psychological effect.
Location as a situational variable
Location refers to the physical or institutional setting in which an authority gives an order.
Milgram’s original procedure was conducted at Yale University, a prestigious institution. He investigated whether participants would respond differently if the study took place in a less prestigious setting.
When the procedure was moved from the university to a less impressive office setting, obedience decreased.
The overall relationship was:
Obedience is more likely in a location that makes the authority appear legitimate.
Why does location affect obedience?
A prestigious or official location can suggest that:
The activity is professionally organised.
The authority has institutional approval.
The person giving orders has appropriate expertise.
The procedures are valid and should be followed.
A less prestigious location may weaken these assumptions. The participant may question whether the authority has a genuine right to issue the instruction.
Location therefore affects obedience by influencing the legitimacy of authority.
The role of institutional legitimacy
A person does not respond only to the individual giving an order. They may also respond to the institution represented by that person.
For example:
A teacher may appear more authoritative inside a school.
A judge’s authority is reinforced by the courtroom.
A manager’s authority may be reinforced by an official workplace.
A researcher may appear more legitimate inside a recognised university.
The same instruction may be treated differently when given in an unofficial or inappropriate setting.
Applying location to an unfamiliar situation
A person wearing an identification badge asks visitors to follow an evacuation route inside an official government building. The same person later gives unrelated orders in a public park.
The person may receive greater obedience inside the government building because the location supports the legitimacy of their role. In the park, the connection between the person’s role and their right to issue instructions is weaker.
A strong answer should not simply say that one location is “more formal”. It should explain that the setting changes the perceived legitimacy of the authority.
Uniform as a situational variable
A uniform is clothing associated with a particular social role or occupation.
Uniform can act as a visible symbol of:
Authority
Status
Professional responsibility
Membership of an official organisation
A recognised right to enforce rules
Milgram’s experimenter wore a grey laboratory coat. This clothing supported the experimenter’s identity as a scientific authority.
Uniform may increase obedience because people learn to associate particular forms of dress with recognised positions in a social hierarchy.
How uniform influences legitimacy
Uniform can communicate authority before the person has explained their role.
For example, a uniform may lead others to assume that the person:
Has been appointed by a recognised organisation.
Has specialist knowledge or training.
Has responsibility for managing the situation.
Has the right to issue certain instructions.
This can make orders appear more legitimate.
The likely process is:
The individual sees the uniform.
The uniform signals an official role.
The role is associated with legitimate authority.
The person accepts the authority’s right to issue an order.
Obedience becomes more likely.
Without the uniform, the authority’s status may be less obvious and the order may be questioned more readily.
The limits of uniform
Uniform does not guarantee obedience.
Its influence is likely to depend on:
Whether the uniform is recognised.
Whether it is appropriate to the setting.
Whether the order falls within the authority’s role.
Whether other situational or individual factors support obedience.
For example, a railway employee may have legitimate authority to direct passengers away from a platform, but the same uniform would not necessarily create legitimate authority over an unrelated decision outside the station.
The important issue is not the clothing alone. It is the social meaning attached to the clothing.
Comparing proximity, location and uniform
Situational variable | Condition likely to increase obedience | Condition likely to reduce obedience | Main explanation |
Proximity of authority | Authority is physically close and gives orders face-to-face | Authority is distant or communicates remotely | Direct pressure and monitoring are weakened by distance |
Proximity of victim | Victim is distant and consequences are less immediate | Victim is physically close | Direct awareness of consequences makes resistance more likely |
Location | Prestigious or official institutional setting | Unofficial or less prestigious setting | The setting changes the authority’s perceived legitimacy |
Uniform | Authority wears clothing associated with an official role | Authority lacks visible signs of status | Uniform acts as a symbol of legitimate authority |
How the variables relate to explanations for obedience
The situational variables help explain when the agentic state and legitimacy of authority are most likely to influence behaviour.
Proximity and the agentic state
A nearby authority may make it easier for a person to remain in an agentic state because the authority:
Gives direct instructions.
Monitors behaviour.
Maintains pressure to continue.
Appears to accept responsibility for the action.
When the authority is distant, the individual may feel more able to act autonomously.
Location and legitimacy of authority
An official setting can strengthen legitimacy because the authority appears to represent a recognised institution.
A less prestigious or inappropriate setting may cause the individual to question whether the authority genuinely has the right to issue orders.
Uniform and legitimacy of authority
Uniform provides a visible sign of role and status. This can make the authority’s position in the hierarchy immediately recognisable.
The three variables are therefore not isolated facts. They show how features of a situation can strengthen or weaken the psychological processes behind obedience.
Situational and dispositional explanations
Milgram’s variations suggest that behaviour changes when the situation changes.
This supports a situational explanation of obedience.
However, individuals exposed to the same situation do not always behave identically. Some obey while others resist. This suggests that characteristics of the individual may also matter.
You will examine a dispositional explanation in the relationship between personality and obedience.
Situational explanation | Dispositional explanation |
Focuses on the environment surrounding the person | Focuses on characteristics within the person |
Includes proximity, location and uniform | Includes the Authoritarian Personality |
Predicts that behaviour may change when circumstances change | Predicts that some individuals may be consistently more obedient |
Supported when variations produce different levels of obedience | Supported when people respond differently in the same situation |
Evaluating Milgram’s research
High control
A strength of Milgram’s research was the use of controlled variations.
By changing one situational feature while keeping much of the procedure consistent, Milgram could compare the effects of proximity and location.
This made it easier to identify relationships between:
The independent variable, such as the distance from the experimenter.
The dependent variable, the participant’s level of obedience.
The standardised procedure also made the variations easier to replicate. This connects to the importance of objectivity and replicability in psychological research.
Artificial research setting
A limitation is that the procedure was highly unusual.
Administering apparent electric shocks in a laboratory does not closely resemble most everyday orders. Participants’ behaviour in this situation may not represent obedience in workplaces, schools, hospitals or public settings.
This may reduce the ecological validity of the findings.
However, the situational variables themselves can still be relevant outside a laboratory. Authority figures in everyday life also vary in:
Physical closeness.
Institutional setting.
Visible symbols of authority.
A developed evaluation should consider both sides rather than assuming that laboratory research has no value.
Participants may have questioned the situation
Some participants may have suspected that the procedure was not entirely genuine.
If a participant doubted that the learner was actually being harmed, their continuation might not demonstrate complete obedience to a harmful order.
Unusual variations may have made the situation appear even less convincing. This could affect the validity of conclusions about why participants obeyed.
This criticism should be linked directly to the findings:
If participants believed the shocks were not real, their behaviour may not accurately represent obedience when genuine consequences are expected.
Ethical issues
Milgram’s procedure involved deception because participants were misled about:
The purpose of the research.
The role of the learner.
Whether the shocks were genuine.
Participants also experienced conflict and signs of distress. The experimenter’s instructions to continue may have made the right to withdraw appear less clear.
These issues are explored more fully when studying how ethical concerns should be managed in psychological investigations.
In an obedience essay, ethical issues should not be included as a memorised paragraph with no connection to the question. Explain how they affect the interpretation or value of the evidence.
Situational variables do not explain every response
A limitation of a purely situational explanation is that obedience did not become inevitable or disappear completely in every condition.
People exposed to the same situational variable sometimes responded differently. This means proximity, location and uniform cannot provide a complete explanation of obedience.
Other influences may include:
The agentic state.
Legitimacy of authority.
The Authoritarian Personality.
Social support.
Locus of control.
The strongest conclusion is therefore that situational variables affect the likelihood of obedience rather than determining behaviour completely.
Answering application questions
Application questions require you to explain how a situational variable operates within the details of a scenario.
A useful structure is:
Name the variable.
Identify the relevant scenario detail.
State whether it should increase or decrease obedience.
Explain why, using psychological terminology.
Weak application
Aisha obeyed because the manager was close.
This identifies a detail but does not explain its effect.
Stronger application
Aisha may be more likely to obey because the manager gives the order face-to-face. The manager’s close proximity creates immediate social pressure and allows them to monitor whether Aisha follows the instruction.
For location:
The order is given inside the hospital, which may increase obedience because the official setting strengthens the doctor’s legitimacy of authority.
For uniform:
The officer’s uniform acts as a visible symbol of legitimate authority, making it more likely that the public will accept the officer’s right to issue instructions.
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint: Use specialist terminology such as proximity, legitimacy of authority, agentic state and autonomous state. Examiner reports indicate that accurate terminology helps distinguish stronger responses.
Examiner hint: Keep descriptions of Milgram’s procedure selective. Students sometimes provided excessive methodological detail when the question required discussion of why situational variables affect obedience.
Examiner hint:Â Link each research finding back to an explanation. For example, explain that an official location may increase obedience by strengthening legitimacy of authority.
Examiner hint:Â When evaluating the research, focus on what the evidence tells us about obedience. Generic paragraphs about ethics or laboratory studies are ineffective when they are not connected to the question.
Examiner hint:Â Do not assume that a situational variable determines behaviour completely. Stronger discussions recognise that obedience is not always zero or total, suggesting that other factors are involved.
Examiner hint:Â In an extended response, compare situational explanations with an alternative such as the Authoritarian Personality rather than merely naming the alternative.
Examiner hint: Apply research accurately to the question’s focus. If the question asks what situational variables tell us about why people obey, every evaluation paragraph should return to that issue.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Confusing the proximity of the authority with the proximity of the victim
Why this is incorrect:
The two changes generally have opposite effects. A closer authority tends to increase obedience, while a closer victim tends to reduce it.
How to improve:
Identify who has moved:
Authority closer → obedience more likely.
Victim closer → obedience less likely.
Mistake: Saying that distance always prevents obedience
Why this is incorrect:
Distance changes the likelihood of obedience but does not determine every person’s response.
How to improve:
Use cautious language such as “obedience is likely to decrease” rather than “no one will obey”.
Mistake: Describing location as simply the room where the research happened
Why this is incorrect:
The important issue is the meaning attached to the setting. An official or prestigious location may make the authority appear more legitimate.
How to improve:
Link location to institutional status and legitimacy of authority.
Mistake: Saying that people obey a uniform rather than a person
Why this is incorrect:
The uniform is a symbol that communicates an official role. The person obeys because the wearer appears to possess legitimate authority.
How to improve:
Explain the process from uniform to recognised role, then from recognised role to obedience.
Mistake: Claiming that uniform automatically creates legitimate authority
Why this is incorrect:
The uniform must be recognised and appropriate to the situation. Its influence is also affected by other situational and individual factors.
How to improve:
State that uniform can increase the perception of legitimate authority.
Mistake: Describing Milgram’s basic procedure without mentioning the situational variations
Why this is incorrect:
The lesson focuses on how changes in proximity and location affected obedience.
How to improve:
Use the basic procedure briefly, then explain what Milgram changed and how obedience was affected.
Mistake: Listing a variation without explaining its result
Why this is incorrect:
Writing that the experimenter gave orders by telephone does not show what the research demonstrated.
How to improve:
Complete the point:
When the experimenter gave orders by telephone, obedience decreased because authority pressure was less immediate.
Mistake: Giving a generic evaluation of laboratory research
Why this is incorrect:
A statement such as “laboratory studies are artificial” is incomplete and not clearly related to obedience.
How to improve:
Explain the consequence:
The unusual shock procedure may not represent everyday obedience, reducing the extent to which Milgram’s findings generalise to ordinary authority situations.
Mistake: Treating situational and dispositional explanations as the same
Why this is incorrect:
Situational explanations focus on proximity, location and uniform. Dispositional explanations focus on characteristics within the individual.
How to improve:
Use the distinction clearly when evaluating the research.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following is a situational variable affecting obedience?
A. Internalisation
B. Proximity
C. Locus of control
D. Task difficulty
[1 mark]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: B. Proximity
Question 2
Define proximity in the context of obedience research.
[2 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 2
2 marks:Â Clear definition referring to physical closeness or distance between the person obeying and the authority figure and/or person affected.
1 mark:Â Limited or partial definition.
Indicative content
Physical distance between the individual and the authority figure.
May also refer to distance from the person affected by the individual's actions.
Example answer
Proximity refers to how physically close a person is to the authority figure giving the order or to the person affected by their actions.
Question 3
Outline how Milgram investigated obedience.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 4
Award 1 mark for each relevant point, up to 4 marks.
Indicative content
Participants were assigned the role of teacher, while a confederate was the learner.
The teacher was instructed to give an electric shock whenever the learner answered incorrectly.
Shock levels increased progressively, up to 450 volts.
The learner protested and eventually stopped responding.
The experimenter used verbal prods if the participant wished to stop.
Obedience was measured by how far participants continued with the shock procedure.
Example answer
Participants acted as teachers while a confederate was the learner. The teacher was instructed to give increasingly strong electric shocks for incorrect answers. The learner protested as the shocks increased and the experimenter encouraged participants to continue. Obedience was measured by the highest shock level reached.
Question 4
Explain how moving the experimenter further away from the participant is likely to affect obedience.
[3 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 3
Award 1 mark each for:
Obedience is likely to decrease.
Greater distance reduces the immediate pressure from the authority figure.
The participant may feel more able to act independently or return to an autonomous state.
AQA credits Milgram's telephone condition as evidence that obedience decreased when the experimenter was further away.
Example answer
Obedience is likely to decrease because the authority figure is less physically close. This reduces the immediate pressure to obey and may make the participant feel more able to act autonomously and refuse the instruction.
Question 5
A fire marshal gives instructions to a group of shoppers inside a shopping centre. The marshal is standing close to the group and is wearing an official uniform.
Use your knowledge of situational variables to explain why the shoppers are likely to obey.
[4 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 4
Award up to 2 marks for proximity and 2 marks for uniform.
Indicative content
The marshal is physically close to the shoppers, increasing pressure to obey.
It may be harder to resist an authority who is immediately present.
The official uniform is a visible sign of authority.
The uniform increases the marshal's perceived legitimacy, making obedience more likely.
Example answer
The shoppers are likely to obey because the fire marshal is physically close, increasing the immediate pressure to follow the instruction. The official uniform is also a visible symbol of authority, so the shoppers are more likely to see the marshal as having a legitimate right to give orders.
Question 6
A company director gives an employee an instruction during a formal meeting at the company’s headquarters. The same instruction is later given by an unfamiliar person in ordinary clothing outside a café.
Use your knowledge of location and uniform to explain why obedience may differ between the two situations.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for location and 3 marks for uniform.
Location
Company headquarters is a formal setting associated with the director's authority.
The setting increases the perceived legitimacy of the instruction.
Outside a café is less strongly associated with recognised authority, so obedience may decrease.
Uniform/clothing
Clothing can act as a visible symbol of authority.
The unfamiliar person's ordinary clothing provides no clear cue of official authority.
The person may therefore be perceived as having less legitimate authority and produce less obedience.
AQA specifically links location with the genuineness or legitimacy of authority and uniform with visible signs of authority.
Example answer
Obedience is likely to be higher at the company's headquarters because this formal location supports the director's legitimate authority. Outside a café, the setting provides fewer cues of authority. The unfamiliar person's ordinary clothing also gives no visible indication of an official role, so the employee may be less likely to regard them as a legitimate authority and therefore less likely to obey.
Question 7
A psychologist conducts a study of obedience in three conditions.
Condition | Arrangement | Percentage obeying the final instruction |
A | Authority gives instructions face-to-face | 70% |
B | Authority gives instructions by telephone | 35% |
C | Authority gives instructions by telephone while the affected person is in the same room as the participant | 18% |
Describe the pattern shown in the results. Use proximity to explain the difference between Conditions A and C.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for describing the pattern and 3 marks for explaining it.
Indicative content
Pattern
Obedience is highest in Condition A at 70%.
It falls to 35%Â when instructions are given by telephone.
It falls further to 18%Â when the authority is remote and the affected person is in the same room.
Explanation
In Condition A, the authority figure is physically close, creating greater pressure to obey.
In Condition C, the authority is distant because instructions are given by telephone.
The affected person is also physically close, making the consequences of obedience more immediate, which may increase resistance.
Example answer
Obedience falls across the three conditions, from 70% in Condition A to 35% in B and 18% in C. In Condition A the authority gives instructions face-to-face, so their close proximity creates strong pressure to obey. In Condition C the authority is distant because instructions are given by telephone, while the affected person is close to the participant. Both changes make obedience less likely.
Question 8
A hospital manager instructs a nurse to follow a new procedure. The manager gives the instruction by telephone from another building. A colleague beside the nurse refuses to follow the procedure.
Explain why the nurse might resist the instruction. Refer to proximity and one other relevant aspect of social influence in your answer.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for proximity and 3 marks for one other relevant aspect, most clearly social support.
Proximity
The manager is in another building.
The instruction is given by telephone, so the authority figure is physically distant.
Reduced proximity lowers the immediate pressure to obey and may make resistance easier.
Social support
The colleague refuses to follow the procedure.
Seeing someone else resist provides a disobedient role model/social support.
This can increase the nurse's confidence to resist the manager as well.
AQA explicitly credits the presence of a disobedient person as social support that can increase confidence to defy an authority, and also recognises greater distance from an authority figure as making resistance more likely.
Example answer
The nurse may resist because the manager is physically distant and gives the instruction by telephone. This reduces the immediate pressure from the authority figure and makes disobedience easier. The nurse also has social support because the colleague beside them refuses to follow the procedure. Seeing another person resist may increase the nurse's confidence to refuse as well.
Question 9
Discuss situational variables affecting obedience. Refer to proximity, location and uniform in your answer.
[16 marks]
Comments