A new approach to children's education quarterly

A new approach to children's education quarterly

Analyzing the psychology of authority based on the Stanley test: a case study of psychology students

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Smaeil Namdari 1
Karim Afsharineya 2
keyvan kakabaraee 3
Mokhtar Arefi 2
1 PhD student, Department of Psychology, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Psychology, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
10.22034/naes.2024.469036.1491
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the present study is to repeat the concept of the obedience to authority test of Stanley Milgram (1963-1974) by controlling the influence of disturbing variables raised by critics such as (the role of laboratory conditions, the believable implementation of deception, the effect of trust in the normal personality of the experimenter, the legroom effect using stimulating and coercive sentences) in a comprehensive plan and also investigating the correlation of two variables of age and gender with the level of obedience to authority.

Method: The quasi-experimental research method was pre-test-post-test of one group and also of correlation type. The statistical population included all undergraduate students in the field of psychology at Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah branch in the academic year 1401-1402, and using the available sampling method, a class of 30 people from the psychology department was selected as a sample. The research tool included a researcher-made questionnaire. SPSS software version 26 was used for data analysis.

Findings: The results indicated that 84% of the subjects obeyed the orders of the authority significantly (p=0). Also, there was no correlation (r=0.047-0.008) between the variables of age and gender and the level of obedience.

Conclusion: Considering that in the present study, the influence of disturbing variables that had influenced the results of Milgram's research was controlled, the results obtained showed a high level of obedience in line with Milgram's research.
Keywords
obedience to authority
Stanley Milgram
Social influence

Subjects

Arendt, H. (1963/1994). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York: Penguin.
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19, 421-423.
Blass, T. (2004). The Man who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.
Blass, T. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of studies of obedience using the Milgram paradigm: A review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 196-205.
Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 303-325.
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?. American Psychologist, 64, 1-11.
Dambrun, M., & Vatine, E. (2010). Reopening the study of extreme social behaviors: Obedience to authority within an immersive video environment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 760-773.
Elms, A. C., & Milgram, S. (1966). Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance toward authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 282-289.
Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64, 32–36.
Gilbert, S. J. (1981). Another look at the Milgram obedience studies: The role of the graduated series of shocks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 690–695.
Geller, D. M. (1978). Involvement in role-playing simulations: A demonstration with studies on obedience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 219–235.
Holland, C. D. (1967). Sources of variance in experimental investigation of behavioral obedience. Dissertation Abstracts International, 29, 2802A. (University Microfilms No. 69-2146).
Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 1–12.
Laurent Bègue, Jean-Léon Beauvois, Didier Courbet, Dominique Oberlé, JohanLepage. (2015).  Personality Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm. Journal of Personality, Wiley, 83 (3),299-306.
Mantell, D. M., & Panzarella, R. (1976). Obedience and responsibility. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 239–245.
Meeus, W. J., & Raaijmakers, Q. W. (1995). Obedience in modern society: The Utrecht studies. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 155-175.
Mixon, D. (1976). Studying feignable behavior. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7, 89–104.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 848–852.
Miller, A. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New "York: Praeger.
Miller, A. (1972). Role-playing: An alternative to deception? American Psychologist, 27, 625-636.
Morelli, M. F. (1983). Milgram’s dilemma of obedience. Metaphilosophy, 14, 183-189.
Miller, A.G. (2009). Reflections on “Replicating Milgram” (Burger, 2009). American Psychologist, 64, 20-27.
O’Leary, C., Willis, F., & Tomich, E. (1970). Conformity under deceptive and nondeceptive techniques. Sociological Quarterly, 11, 87-93.5.1970.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282–293.
Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psycho experiments. The New Press.
Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1977). A behavioral study of obedience in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 530–536.
Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C. Barker, C.,… Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS ONE, 1, 1-10.
Virgil Zeigler-Hill , Ashton C. Southard , Lindsey M. Archer & Patrick L. Donohoe (2013) Neuroticism and Negative Affect Influence the Reluctance to Engage in Destructive Obedience in the Milgram Paradigm, The Journal of Social Psychology, 153:2, 161-174.
Eliasi, M.H. (2012). Obedience in the Armed Forces, Journal of Defense Policy, 3(2), 1-18.

  • Receive Date 21 July 2024
  • Revise Date 03 August 2024
  • Accept Date 04 August 2024
  • First Publish Date 04 August 2024
  • Publish Date 19 February 2025