Prevent BLIND obedience — justify it
Obedience is changing behaviour because of a direct order from an authority figure. Blind obedience is carrying it out without questioning it — not asking whether the person has the right, whether it is reasonable, or what it will do. Some obedience is necessary, so the aim is to restore the question, not stop obedience. For every method give three parts: the way, the mechanism (pressure removed), and the evidence (usually Milgram).
Ways that change the SITUATION
One family changes the circumstances, so the pressure weakens for anyone there. Disobedient model — obedience fell from about 65% to 10% when two others refused (best-evidenced). Questioning legitimacy — check the order, not the uniform: it was lower in a run-down office than a university. Consequences in view — it dropped with the victim in the room. Refuse the small first step — orders escalate gradually. Test: still work for a different person?
Ways that change the PERSON
The second family changes the individual, so they resist better anywhere. Education — teaching what Milgram found (people obeyed because of the situation) gives a name for the pressure, easier to resist. Personal responsibility — keeping the person answerable removes the "I was only following orders" escape. Question and challenge — assertiveness training, checklists that let a junior speak up, whistleblowing. Test: would it travel with them elsewhere?
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Prevention reduces, not eliminates
Two over-statements. "Education stops obeying" — every method reduces a likelihood: even with two others refusing a minority continued, so a method weakens the pressure, not removes it. "The aim is to stop obedience" — no: the target is blind obedience; ordinary obedience is necessary. What is prevented is obedience that has stopped being questioned.
Ways listed but never justified
The reported failure here. "One way is to educate people; another is to show someone disobeying" names two methods but scores little: neither says what it does to the pressure or gives evidence. Each needs research support — a disobedient model works because refusal is shown possible, and Milgram found obedience fell from 65% to 10% when two refused.
Candidates should justify each way of preventing blind obedience with research evidence such as Milgram (Nov 2021 P1 Q23); identification without justification is named on strength and weakness items (June 2024 P1 Q11b, Q15b).
A cause is not a prevention
Asked to prevent blind obedience, candidates name a cause of it: "proximity to the authority figure." Proximity is a cause, not a prevention — it becomes an answer only when turned into something done, like requiring orders in writing so they can be checked. A cause becomes a prevention when you say what is changed, by whom.
On this statement, answers must set out ways of preventing blind obedience justified by evidence rather than restating what causes it (Nov 2021 P1 Q23).
Obedience ≠ conformity
The classic trap treats obedience and conformity as one idea. Obedience is changing behaviour because of a direct order from an authority figure; conformity is matching a majority group where no order is given, the pressure being to fit in. Confusing them answers the wrong question, since a method preventing obedience need not prevent conformity.
Conformity and obedience are the classic definition trap needing connectives (June 2022 P1 Q22).
Obeyers must be cruel people
If blind obedience came from cruel people, prevention would just mean screening them out. But ordinary people obeyed: Milgram's participants were not selected for cruelty, and many were distressed yet continued. The behaviour came from the situation, not the person — which is why prevention works: change the situation, or what the individual feels responsible for.
"Difference" needs a connective
Asked for the difference between obedience and conformity, most give two definitions side by side — the difference only implied, worth one mark. The second needs a comparative sentence: "Obedience follows a direct order, whereas conformity matches a majority, no order given." The connective whereas earns it.
"Describe the difference" answered as two separate definitions earns one mark, with connectives such as "whereas" earning the second (June 2019 P1 Q6, June 2022 P1 Q7).
Two marks need two points
A 2-mark describe needs two unique points, not one reworded. "You show someone refusing" then "they see disobeying is possible" is one point twice — the second just restates the first. A genuine second point is a different link: the mechanism as distinct from the method, or the evidence as distinct from the mechanism.
A 2-mark describe requires two unique points rather than the same point reworded (June 2023 P2 Q22).
Situational vs personal — the swap
Candidates asked for a personality factor give a situational one, and the reverse — the same trap hits prevention methods. Situational = the circumstances changed (disobedient model, questioning legitimacy); test: works for a different person? Personal = the individual changed (education, responsibility, assertiveness); test: travels with them?
Candidates give personality factors when a situational factor was asked for in obedience, and the reverse (June 2023 P1 Q21a, Q21b).
Quote the detail, not the name
The scenario detail is the only source of AO2 marks — a name or repeated stem scores nothing. Take a specific detail, name the pressure it creates, then the method that removes it (uniform on a first shift = legitimacy cues). Apply before evaluating: AO3 needs AO2.
Reach the 7-9 band on the Assess
The 9-mark Assess is AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3, ceiling AO3. Balance means saying what a method cannot do — prevention lowers the likelihood, not removes it; methods work best in combination. Write in continuous prose; conclude with a judgement.
Name your AO3 lenses
AO3 is the ceiling, so evaluate with named lenses. Validity — evidence is largely from staged lab studies participants may have guessed. Generalisability — short-study volunteers differ from a worker whose job depends on obeying. Ethics — real distress.
Obedience — changing your behaviour because you have been given a direct order by an authority figure, someone with power over you.
Blind obedience — carrying out that order without questioning it: without asking whether the person has the right to give it, whether the order is reasonable or lawful, and what its consequences will be.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
