The study of human obedience is a central theme in social psychology, and several important experimental studies have provided insights into how people respond to authority figures and the conditions that promote obedience.
Get the full solved assignment PDF of MPC-004 of 2024-25 session now by clicking on above button.
These studies typically explore how individuals conform to orders, even when those orders conflict with their moral principles. Below are the most prominent experimental studies of human obedience:
1. Milgram’s Obedience Study (1961)
One of the most famous and influential studies of obedience is Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment, conducted in the early 1960s. Milgram’s study sought to understand the extent to which individuals would obey authority figures, even when doing so caused harm to others.
Method:
- Participants: 40 male participants, aged 20-50, from various walks of life, were recruited for the study.
- Setup: The participants were told they were part of an experiment on learning and memory. They were assigned the role of a “teacher” and instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a “learner” (who was actually an actor and not really receiving shocks).
- Procedure: The “learner” was strapped to a chair with electrodes, and whenever they gave a wrong answer, the “teacher” was instructed to administer a shock, starting at 15 volts and increasing by 15 volts with each wrong answer, up to 450 volts (marked as “Danger: Severe Shock”). The authority figure (the experimenter, dressed in a lab coat) encouraged the teacher to continue whenever they hesitated, using prompts like “Please continue” or “The experiment requires that you continue.”
- Findings: A surprisingly high percentage of participants (65%) were willing to administer the maximum shock of 450 volts, even though they could hear the learner (actor) screaming in pain and begging for the experiment to stop. Most participants continued to obey, following the experimenter’s commands despite their apparent discomfort and moral conflict.
Implications:
Milgram’s study revealed the powerful influence of authority on human behavior. It demonstrated that ordinary people could commit harmful actions when directed by an authority figure. The findings raised ethical concerns about the use of deception and the psychological harm caused to participants. Despite the ethical controversy, the study remains a cornerstone in understanding obedience to authority.
2. The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Another influential study on human obedience is Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, which examined how individuals conform to assigned social roles in a simulated prison environment. While the study focused more on social roles and group dynamics, it also shed light on the role of authority and obedience.
Method:
- Participants: 24 male college students were selected and randomly assigned to play either the role of a “guard” or a “prisoner.”
- Setup: The study took place in a mock prison constructed in the basement of Stanford University. The “guards” were given uniforms, sunglasses, and whistles, while the “prisoners” were given smocks and chains.
- Procedure: The study was supposed to last two weeks, but it was terminated after just six days due to the extreme behavior exhibited by the participants. The guards quickly began to assert power over the prisoners, engaging in abusive, dehumanizing, and humiliating behavior. The prisoners, in turn, became passive, submissive, and emotionally distressed. Some prisoners had to be removed from the experiment early due to emotional breakdowns.
- Findings: The study showed that people readily conform to social roles, and those in positions of power (guards) can behave in ways that are aggressive and oppressive, even if they would not typically act in such a manner outside the context of the experiment. The experiment demonstrated that obedience to authority can quickly escalate into cruelty and inhumane behavior when there is a lack of checks on power.
Implications:
The Stanford Prison Experiment illustrated how situational factors, rather than personality traits, could influence behavior. It also emphasized the role of authority in driving obedience and the potential dangers of unchecked power in hierarchical settings, like prisons or military structures. Like Milgram’s study, this experiment raised significant ethical concerns, particularly about the psychological harm caused to participants.
3. The Asch Conformity Experiments (1950s)
While Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments were primarily focused on social pressure and conformity rather than obedience to authority, they provide valuable insight into how individuals obey group norms, which is closely related to obedience.
Method:
- Participants: Groups of 7-9 male participants, where only one was a true subject, and the rest were confederates (research assistants).
- Setup: The participants were shown a line on a card and asked to choose which of three comparison lines matched the length of the original line. The confederates were instructed to give incorrect answers on some trials.
- Procedure: On several trials, the confederates gave unanimous incorrect answers, creating group pressure for the real participant to conform to the incorrect majority. The key measure was whether the real participant would conform to the incorrect group answer or stick with their own judgment.
- Findings: Asch found that a significant proportion of participants (about 32%) conformed to the incorrect majority at least once, and 75% conformed at least once during the entire experiment. This demonstrated the powerful influence of group pressure, even when the group was obviously wrong.
- Implications: Although not about obedience to authority in the traditional sense, Asch’s research highlighted the role of social pressure in influencing behavior. It showed that individuals often conform to group norms and go along with the majority even when they know the majority is wrong.
4. Bickman’s Field Experiment (1974)
In a field experiment conducted by Bickman (1974), researchers tested the influence of authority figures on compliance in everyday situations, focusing on how different uniforms affected obedience.
Method:
- Participants: Passersby in a public area (New York City).
- Setup: An experimenter in different outfits (a guard’s uniform, a milkman’s outfit, and a civilian outfit) asked pedestrians to perform simple tasks, such as picking up trash or giving money to someone. The tasks were all harmless but required the passerby to comply with an authority figure’s request.
- Procedure: The experimenter, dressed in a uniform that implied authority (e.g., a security guard uniform), asked pedestrians to perform tasks. The same requests were made by someone dressed as a civilian or milkman, who did not convey any authority.
- Findings: The study found that people were more likely to obey requests from the uniformed authority figure than from the non-authoritative figures. People complied with the requests more often when the authority figure was dressed in a guard uniform compared to when they were dressed in everyday clothes.
Implications:
This study demonstrated that the presence of authority cues (such as uniforms or symbols of power) significantly increased the likelihood of compliance, even in public and seemingly non-authoritative settings. It highlights the importance of authority symbols in eliciting obedience.
5. Burger’s Replication of Milgram’s Study (2009)
In 2009, Jerry Burger replicated Milgram’s obedience study, with modifications to address ethical concerns about the original study, such as participant distress.
Method:
- Participants: 70 participants (both men and women), who were recruited with the same procedures as Milgram’s original study.
- Procedure: Participants were asked to administer shocks to a learner, with the same setup as Milgram’s study, but the maximum shock level was capped at 150 volts. The study used a screening process to ensure participants had no significant psychological issues and were unlikely to be harmed by the experiment.
- Findings: Burger found that about 70% of participants continued to administer shocks past the 150-volt mark, which was the point at which the learner began expressing pain and asking to stop. This result is remarkably similar to Milgram’s findings, suggesting that the tendency to obey authority figures persists across time and cultures.
Implications:
Burger’s study confirmed that the phenomenon of obedience to authority is robust and still relevant today. By limiting the shocks to 150 volts, it addressed some of the ethical concerns about causing distress but showed that a substantial portion of participants were still willing to obey authority figures to potentially harmful extremes.
Conclusion:
The study of human obedience has revealed that people are often willing to follow orders from authority figures, even when those orders conflict with their moral values. These experiments (Milgram, Zimbardo, Asch, Bickman, and others) have greatly advanced our understanding of how authority and situational factors influence behavior. They also raise important ethical questions about the responsibility of researchers and the potential harm caused to participants. Despite the ethical concerns, these studies have had a profound impact on social psychology and continue to inform discussions on human behavior, authority, and morality.