A junior technician at a manufacturing facility, who is under investigation for discharging untreated chemical waste into a municipal waterway, was acting under direct instructions, an environmental tribunal has heard.
Technician 'K' has denied personal liability during a formal regulatory inquiry into the environmental damage.
The technician's legal representative argued that the discharge was the direct outcome of emergency operational directives issued by the plant's chief safety director during a system crisis. The defense submitted a high-priority directive document titled 'Protocol Zero'. The tribunal was shown instructions from the chief safety director commanding staff to "depressurize all primary containment vessels immediately by bypassing secondary filtration units." The representative argued: "Our client is being scapegoated for merely executing direct, authoritative mandates from the head of safety operations."
Technician 'K' maintained they had no choice but to comply. The inquiry continues.
Based on a simulated report of an environmental regulatory inquiry.
Using your knowledge of Milgram's research and explanations of obedience, explain how the behavior of Technician 'K' in the scenario can be understood.
128 exam-style questions on OCR A Level Psychology Responses to people in authority, covering Milgram (1963): Obedience and Bocchiaro et al. (2012): Disobedience and whistle-blowing. Each one has a worked solution and a mark scheme showing where the marks go.