Key Experiments in Obedience Studies

Why This Matters

Obedience research sits at the heart of social psychology's most important question: why do good people do harmful things? On the AP exam, you're being tested on your ability to explain how situational factors, authority dynamics, and social pressure override individual morality. These experiments don't just describe behavior—they reveal the psychological mechanisms that make ordinary people capable of extraordinary compliance, from laboratory settings to real-world atrocities.

Don't just memorize the names and dates of these studies. Know what each experiment demonstrates about the power of authority, the influence of uniforms and symbols, and the role of gradual commitment. When you see an FRQ asking about obedience or conformity, you need to connect specific experiments to broader principles like deindividuation, diffusion of responsibility, and legitimacy of authority. Master the "why" behind each study, and you'll be ready for any question they throw at you.

---

Direct Authority Commands

These experiments examine what happens when an authority figure explicitly instructs someone to perform an action—even one that conflicts with personal ethics. The key mechanism is legitimacy: we're socialized to defer to perceived experts and institutional power.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment

• 65% of participants delivered maximum "shocks"—believing they were causing severe pain to another person, simply because an experimenter in a lab coat instructed them to continue
• Proximity variables dramatically affected obedience rates; when the "learner" was in the same room, compliance dropped, revealing that psychological distance enables harmful obedience
• Agentic state theory emerged from this work—the idea that people shift responsibility to authority figures, seeing themselves as mere instruments rather than autonomous moral agents

Burger's Replication of Milgram's Study

• 70% compliance rate in 2009 matched Milgram's original findings, even with enhanced ethical protections and participant screening for psychological stability
• Participants could withdraw freely—yet most continued, demonstrating that Milgram's results weren't artifacts of 1960s culture or methodology
• Modern relevance confirmed—this replication silenced critics who argued obedience levels had declined over time, making it essential evidence for contemporary applications

Hofling Hospital Experiment

• 95% of nurses complied with a phone order from an unknown "doctor" to administer twice the maximum dosage of an unauthorized medication
• Real-world professional setting distinguished this from laboratory studies—nurses faced genuine career consequences and violated multiple hospital protocols
• Authority trumped training—despite knowing proper procedures, nurses deferred to the perceived legitimacy of a physician's voice, illustrating hierarchical obedience in institutions

---

Situational Power and Role Adoption

These studies reveal how environments and assigned roles transform behavior independent of personality. The mechanism is deindividuation: when identity becomes tied to a role or group, personal responsibility dissolves.

Stanford Prison Experiment

• Terminated after 6 days instead of the planned two weeks because guards became sadistic and prisoners showed severe psychological distress
• Random assignment meant guards and prisoners had identical personality profiles beforehand—yet situational roles produced dramatically different behaviors
• Zimbardo's key insight: the prison structure created abuse, not "bad apples"—this challenges dispositional attribution and supports situational explanations of behavior

Zimbardo's "The Lucifer Effect"

• Systemic analysis framework extends Stanford findings to explain Abu Ghraib, genocide, and institutional abuse through situational and systemic factors rather than individual evil
• Three-level model identifies individual, situational, and systemic forces—exam questions often ask you to distinguish these levels of analysis
• Heroism research emerged as the flip side—Zimbardo later studied how situations can also produce moral courage, offering a complete picture of situational influence

---

Conformity and Group Pressure

While not strictly "obedience" studies, these experiments reveal how group dynamics create compliance without explicit authority. The mechanism is normative influence: we conform to gain acceptance and avoid social rejection.

Asch Conformity Experiments

• 37% conformity rate on obviously incorrect answers when confederates unanimously gave wrong responses—participants literally denied what their eyes told them
• Unanimity was crucial—a single dissenter reduced conformity dramatically, revealing that social support enables resistance to group pressure
• Informational vs. normative influence distinction emerged here: some participants genuinely doubted their perception, while others knowingly gave wrong answers to fit in

The Third Wave Experiment

• High school classroom demonstration in 1967 (later dramatized) showed students rapidly adopting authoritarian behaviors when a teacher created a disciplined "movement"
• Escalation through commitment—small initial compliance (posture, salutes) led to students policing each other and recruiting members, illustrating foot-in-the-door progression
• Groupthink in action—students prioritized movement loyalty over critical thinking, demonstrating how quickly conformity can override individual judgment

---

Authority Symbols and Legitimacy Cues

These experiments isolate the visual and contextual markers that trigger obedience—even when no real authority exists.

Bickman's Guard Experiment

• Uniform alone increased compliance—people were significantly more likely to follow commands from someone in a guard uniform than civilian clothes, even for arbitrary requests
• No actual authority existed—the "guard" had no legal power, yet the symbol of authority was sufficient to trigger obedience responses
• Ecological validity—conducted on public streets, this study demonstrates that laboratory findings about authority transfer to everyday situations

---

Learning and Modeling Obedience

This research examines how obedience patterns are acquired through observation rather than direct instruction.

Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment

• Children imitated aggressive behaviors they observed in adults, including specific actions like hitting the doll with a mallet—demonstrating observational learning
• Model characteristics mattered—children were more likely to imitate same-sex models and those who were rewarded rather than punished for aggression
• Vicarious reinforcement explains why we learn obedience patterns by watching others be rewarded for compliance—connecting to how authority structures perpetuate themselves

---

Real-World Applications

Understanding how laboratory findings manifest in actual events is crucial for demonstrating psychological concepts on FRQs.

My Lai Massacre

• 300-500 unarmed civilians killed by U.S. soldiers in 1968, with most participants later claiming they were "following orders"—a direct parallel to Milgram's findings
• Dehumanization enabled compliance—victims were referred to with slurs, illustrating how psychological distance (also seen in Milgram's variations) facilitates harmful obedience
• Lieutenant Calley's defense explicitly invoked obedience to authority, making this the most-cited real-world example of Milgram's principles in action

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two experiments best demonstrate that situational factors override personality in determining behavior? What mechanism does each illustrate?

2. How does the Hofling Hospital Experiment extend Milgram's findings, and why does it provide stronger evidence for real-world applications?

3. Compare Asch's conformity experiments with Milgram's obedience study—what type of social influence does each demonstrate, and how do the mechanisms differ?

4. If an FRQ asks you to explain how ordinary people commit atrocities, which three experiments would you cite, and what concept would each illustrate?

5. What did Burger's 2009 replication reveal about the stability of obedience findings over time, and why is this significant for the validity of Milgram's original conclusions?