Obedience to authority and preventing blind obedience

Milgram (1963): 40 men were told to give increasing electric shocks to a 'learner' (a confederate; no real shocks). 65% went to the maximum 450 volts, and all went to at least 300 volts.
Legitimacy of authority: obedience was lower when the study moved from Yale University to a run-down office (47.5%). Uniforms increase legitimacy: Bickman (1974) found people obeyed a person in a guard's uniform more than one in everyday clothes.
Proximity of the authority: when the experimenter gave orders by telephone, obedience fell to 20.5%.
Proximity of the victim: obedience fell when the learner was in the same room.
Agency theory: in an agentic state, people see themselves as acting for the authority, so feel less responsible; in an autonomous state, they feel responsible for their own actions.

Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950): people who are very respectful of authority, rigid in their thinking and hostile to those of lower status are more likely to obey. It was measured with the F-scale.
Locus of control: people with an external locus of control are more likely to obey; those with an internal locus of control take more personal responsibility and are more likely to resist.
Evaluation: situational factors seem powerful, since many ordinary people obeyed in Milgram's study, but personality helps explain why some resisted.

Education: teaching people about research such as Milgram's, so they recognise the danger of blind obedience.
Disobedient role models: when Milgram's participants saw two other 'teachers' refuse, obedience fell to 10%.
Personal responsibility: reminding people they are responsible for their actions moves them out of the agentic state.
Questioning authority: encouraging people to question whether an order is legitimate and right, and supporting whistleblowers in organisations.
Reactance: people may resist when they feel their freedom is being threatened (Brehm, 1966).