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 tested on your ability to explain how situational factors, authority dynamics, and social pressure override individual morality. These experiments reveal the psychological mechanisms that make ordinary people capable of extraordinary compliance, from laboratory settings to real-world atrocities.

Don't just memorize names and dates. 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, connect specific experiments to broader principles like agentic state, deindividuation, 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 that conflicts with personal ethics. The key mechanism is legitimacy of authority: we're socialized from childhood to defer to perceived experts and institutional power.

Milgram's Obedience Experiment

Stanley Milgram's 1963 study at Yale is the single most important experiment in obedience research. Participants were told they were in a "learning study" and were instructed to deliver increasingly powerful electric shocks to a learner (actually a confederate) each time the learner answered incorrectly.

• 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt "shock", believing they were causing severe pain, simply because an experimenter in a lab coat told them to continue
• Proximity variables dramatically affected obedience rates. When the learner was in the same room, compliance dropped to about 40%. When the participant had to physically press the learner's hand onto a shock plate, it dropped to 30%. This reveals that psychological distance enables harmful obedience.
• Agentic state theory emerged from this work: people shift responsibility to the authority figure, seeing themselves as mere instruments rather than autonomous moral agents. Milgram called this the shift from an "autonomous state" to an "agentic state."

Burger's Replication of Milgram's Study

In 2009, Jerry Burger partially replicated Milgram's experiment with modern ethical safeguards. The key change: participants were stopped at 150 volts (the point where the learner first protests) rather than allowed to continue to 450 volts.

• 70% of participants were willing to continue past 150 volts, closely matching the rate Milgram found at the same point in the original study
• Participants could withdraw freely and were screened for psychological vulnerability beforehand, yet most still continued
• This replication challenged critics who argued obedience levels had declined since the 1960s due to cultural changes. The consistency of results across nearly 50 years strengthens the case that obedience to authority reflects deep psychological tendencies, not a product of a particular era.

Hofling Hospital Experiment

Charles Hofling's 1966 study moved obedience research out of the lab and into a real hospital. An unknown "Dr. Smith" called nurses on duty and ordered them to administer 20mg of a fictitious drug called "Astroten," even though the bottle's label clearly stated the maximum dose was 10mg.

• 21 out of 22 nurses (95%) complied with the phone order, preparing to administer double the maximum dosage of an unauthorized medication
• This was a real-world professional setting where nurses faced genuine career consequences and violated multiple hospital protocols (accepting phone orders from unknown doctors, exceeding maximum dosage)
• Professional training did not protect against compliance. Despite knowing proper procedures, nurses deferred to the perceived legitimacy of a physician's voice, illustrating how deeply hierarchical obedience is embedded in institutions

---

Situational Power and Role Adoption

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

Stanford Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo's 1971 study assigned 24 psychologically healthy male college students randomly to the role of either "guard" or "prisoner" in a simulated prison in Stanford's psychology building basement.

• Terminated after 6 days instead of the planned two weeks because guards became increasingly sadistic (using sleep deprivation, forcing degrading exercises) and prisoners showed severe psychological distress (emotional breakdowns, withdrawal)
• 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 directly challenges dispositional attribution (the tendency to blame behavior on personality) and supports situational explanations of behavior

It's worth noting that this study has faced significant methodological criticism in recent years. Researchers have pointed out that Zimbardo coached the guards, that some participants may have been acting, and that demand characteristics likely influenced behavior. You should know the study and its conclusions, but also be prepared to discuss its limitations.

Zimbardo's "The Lucifer Effect"

Zimbardo's 2007 book extended the Stanford findings into a broader framework for understanding evil.

• Three-level model identifies individual (personal traits), situational (immediate environment), and systemic (institutional structures and power hierarchies) forces that shape behavior. Exam questions often ask you to distinguish these levels of analysis.
• Applied to Abu Ghraib: Zimbardo argued that the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq resulted from situational and systemic factors (lack of oversight, dehumanizing conditions, ambiguous rules) rather than a few "bad apple" soldiers
• Heroism research emerged as the flip side. Zimbardo later studied how situations can also produce moral courage, showing that situational influence cuts both ways.

---

Conformity and Group Pressure

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

Asch Conformity Experiments

Solomon Asch's 1951 studies placed a participant in a room with 7 confederates. The group was shown lines of obviously different lengths and asked which comparison line matched a standard line. Confederates were instructed to unanimously give the same wrong answer on certain trials.

• 37% of all responses on critical trials were conforming (incorrect) answers, and about 75% of participants conformed at least once. Participants literally denied what their eyes told them.
• Unanimity was crucial. When even a single confederate gave the correct answer, conformity dropped by about 80%. This reveals that social support enables resistance to group pressure.
• Informational vs. normative influence distinction emerged here. In post-experiment interviews, some participants said they genuinely doubted their own perception (informational influence), while others knew the group was wrong but went along to avoid standing out (normative influence).

The Third Wave Experiment

In 1967, high school teacher Ron Jones created a classroom "movement" called The Third Wave to demonstrate how fascism could take hold. Over five days, he introduced increasingly authoritarian rules and rituals.

• Escalation through commitment: small initial compliance (sitting at attention, required salutes) led to students policing each other's behavior and actively recruiting new members. This illustrates the foot-in-the-door principle, where agreeing to small requests makes people more likely to comply with larger ones.
• Students prioritized movement loyalty over critical thinking, reporting classmates who broke rules and ostracizing non-members. The experiment grew from 30 students to over 200 before Jones ended it.
• This study has limited scientific rigor (no controls, no systematic data collection), but it's a powerful illustration of how conformity can escalate into zealotry through gradual commitment.

---

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

Leonard Bickman's 1974 field experiment had a confederate approach pedestrians on New York City streets and make simple requests (like picking up a bag or standing on the other side of a bus stop sign). The confederate wore either a guard's uniform, a milkman's uniform, or civilian clothes.

• The guard uniform alone significantly increased compliance, even for arbitrary requests. People were about twice as likely to obey someone in a guard uniform compared to civilian clothes.
• No actual authority existed. The "guard" had no legal power whatsoever, yet the symbol of authority was enough to trigger obedience.
• Strong ecological validity: conducted on public streets with unsuspecting participants, this study shows that laboratory findings about authority transfer directly 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

Albert Bandura's 1961 study had children watch an adult model interact with an inflatable Bobo doll. Some children saw the adult behave aggressively (hitting, kicking, and using a mallet on the doll), while others saw non-aggressive behavior or no model at all.

• Children who observed aggressive models imitated specific aggressive behaviors, including actions like hitting the doll with a mallet that they wouldn't have spontaneously performed. This is the foundation of observational learning (also called social learning theory).
• Model characteristics mattered. Children were more likely to imitate same-sex models, and in later variations of the study, children were more likely to imitate models who were rewarded for aggression and less likely to imitate those who were punished.
• Vicarious reinforcement connects this to obedience: we learn compliance patterns by watching others be rewarded for obeying authority. This helps explain how authority structures perpetuate themselves across generations.

---

Real-World Applications

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

My Lai Massacre

On March 16, 1968, U.S. soldiers from Charlie Company killed between 347 and 504 unarmed Vietnamese civilians in the village of My Lai during the Vietnam War.

• Most participants later claimed they were "following orders" from Lieutenant William Calley, directly paralleling Milgram's findings about the agentic state
• Dehumanization enabled compliance. Victims were referred to with slurs, and soldiers had been primed to see villagers as enemies. This illustrates how psychological distance (the same factor Milgram's proximity variations identified) facilitates harmful obedience.
• Lieutenant Calley's defense explicitly invoked obedience to authority. He was the only soldier convicted, receiving a life sentence later reduced to house arrest. This case remains the most-cited real-world example of Milgram's principles.

---

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?