Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.

Abstract

Among the far-reaching implications that have been drawn from Milgram's obedience research is that situations powerfully override personal dispositions as determinants of social behavior. A focused review of the relevant research on the Milgram paradigm reveals that the evidence on situational determinants of obedience is less clear than is generally recognized; contrary to the commonly held view, personality measures can predict obedience; another kind of dispositional variable, enduring beliefs, is also implicated in the obedience process; and approaches suggested by interactionist perspectives can provide some integration of the literature. The article concludes with a discussion of the broader inferences about obedience and social behavior called for by this review and the enduring significance of Milgram's obedience research.It is now 30 years since Milgram first began his series of experiments to study the dynamics of obedience to authority (Milgram

Combining multiple influence strategies to increase consumer compliance

“…These authority appeals are targeted to lead an individual's framing of the targeted product or desired behaviour to align with the authority. Previous research supports these practices and has shown that typically when an authority figure tells people to do something, they will comply (Milgram, 1974;Blass, 1991). As an evolutionary form of social influence (Kelman and Hamilton, 1989;Martin and Hewstone, 2003), the authority appeal speaks to one's basic understanding of the functioning of every social community through various levels of authority and obedience (Modigliani and Rochat, 1995;Cialdini, 2001).…”

Time of Semester as a Factor in Participants’ Obedience to Instructions to Perform an Aversive Task

“…Dispositional factors then became relevant and predictive of participant withdrawal. Blass (1991) has suggested that it may be useful to extend to the Milgram (2004) obedience paradigm the distinction in personality theory between strong and weak situations, with the latter offering a wider variety of options for participant behavior and thereby creating an opportunity for dispositional factors to operate. Milgram's experiments were said to be strong situations.…”

Vindicating Virtue: A Critical Analysis of the Situationist Challenge Against Aristotelian Moral Psychology

“…It is also relevant to our discussion that further empirical research has suggested that several personality variables can have an influence on obedience (see Blass, 1991). For instance, personality variables that have been suggested in the psychological literature as having an influence on obedience include (a) authoritarianism, with subjects that are more authoritarian exhibiting more obedience (see Elms & Milgram, 1966;Elms, 1972), (b) interpersonal trust, with subjects that are more trusting exhibiting more obedience (see Miller, 1975), (c) level of moral judgment, with subjects with lower levels of moral judgment exhibiting more obedience (see Milgram, 1974;Blass, 1991), (d) social intelligence, with subjects with lower levels of social intelligence exhibiting more obedience (see Burley & McGuinness, 1977), (e) hostility, with subjects that are more hostile exhibiting more obedience (see Haas, 1966), and (f) locus of control (Rotter, 1990), with subjects that are more external than internal exhibiting more obedience (see Holland, 1967;Miller, 1975).…”

“…For instance, personality variables that have been suggested in the psychological literature as having an influence on obedience include (a) authoritarianism, with subjects that are more authoritarian exhibiting more obedience (see Elms & Milgram, 1966;Elms, 1972), (b) interpersonal trust, with subjects that are more trusting exhibiting more obedience (see Miller, 1975), (c) level of moral judgment, with subjects with lower levels of moral judgment exhibiting more obedience (see Milgram, 1974;Blass, 1991), (d) social intelligence, with subjects with lower levels of social intelligence exhibiting more obedience (see Burley & McGuinness, 1977), (e) hostility, with subjects that are more hostile exhibiting more obedience (see Haas, 1966), and (f) locus of control (Rotter, 1990), with subjects that are more external than internal exhibiting more obedience (see Holland, 1967;Miller, 1975). Although it has often been complained in the literature that personality traits are not often predictive of behavior, Fleeson and Gallagher (2009) recently performed a meta-analysis of 15 experience-sampling studies conducted over the course of 8 years (ranging over 20,000 reports of trait manifestation in behavior) and found that traits were actually strongly predictive of individual differences in the manifestation of traits in behavior, predicting average levels with correlations between +0.42 and +0.56 (approaching +0.60 for stringently restricted studies; see Table 3 in Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009, p. 1104).…”