Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate obedience to an E’s commands as a function of E competency. Based upon Orne’s (1962, 1969) discussion of the demand characteristics inherent in the typical aggression study, it was hypothesized that E incompetence would decrease S obedience. Competence was manipulated by: (1) presenting some Ss with a nervous and inexperienced E, and (2)“accidentally” killing the victim (a rat) midway through the experiment. Thirty-two undergraduate female Ss participated in the experiment—supposedly a study on the physiological effects of stress. Obedi6nce was operationalized as the difference, in simple reaction time, between trials on which Ss were told that their response might result in shock to the rat and trials on which they were told that their response might save the rat from shock. Significant differences in obedience were obtained between competent and incompetent E conditions, and a significant “kill” effect was found in the competent E conditidn. The results of this study suggested that the extreme acts of obedience observed in the laboratory (e.g., Milgram, 1963) occur only when E is perceived as competent. This finding imposes limits on the generalizability of laboratory studies of obedience.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford. R. N.The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row. 1950.
Baron, R. A. Magmtude of victim pain cues and level of prior anger arousal as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1971, 17, 236–243.
Buss, A. H.The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961.
Elms, A. C., & Milgram, S. Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance toward authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 1966, 1, 282–289.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),Studies in social power. Ann Arbor Institute for Social Research, 1959, 150–167.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M.The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.
McNemar, Q.Psychological statistics New York: Wiley, 1955.
Milgram, S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 371–378.
Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 1965.18, 57–76.
Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776–783.
Orne, M. T. Demand characteristics and quasi-controls. In R. Rosenthal and R. Rosnow (Eds.),Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Orne, M. T., & Evans, F. J. Social control in the psychological experiment: Antisocial behavior and hypnosis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 189–200.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1968, 6, 282–293.
Penner, L. A., & Hawkins, H. L. The effects of visual contact and aggressor identification on interpersonal aggression. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 24, 261–263.
Rokeach, M.The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
Wilson, K. G. A distribution free test of analysis of variance hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 56, 96–101.
Young, P. C. Antisocial uses of hypnosis. In L. M. LeCron (Ed.),Experimental hypnosis. New York: Macmillan, 1952. Pp. 376–409.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Sponsored Research, University of South Florida.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Penner, L.A., Hawkins, H.L., Dertke, M.C. et al. Obedience as a function of experimenter competence. Memory & Cognition 1, 241–245 (1973). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198103
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198103