In a replication of a famous psychology experiment, researchers found that people were just as likely to follow harmful orders from a female authority figure as they were from a male authority figure. This study suggests that the power of professional status can subvert common stereotypes about leadership. The results of this study were recently published in the journal Social Psychology.
The first obedience experiments were conducted in the early 1960s. Participants believed they were administering increasingly powerful electric shocks to an invisible person who had failed a memory test. Even when the subject screamed in pain, the scientist in charge instructed the subject to continue. The vast majority of people pushed the voltage dial to its maximum setting simply because they were told to do so.
Three key figures were involved in these historic trials. Actual participants played the roles of teachers. Actors working with the science team played the learners. The researcher played the role of the experimenter. For decades, many academic teams have recreated parts of the scenario to understand the specific triggers of human obedience.
In past replications, the demographics of both the teacher pushing the button and the learner receiving the virtual shock have been manipulated. Neither of these variables typically changes obedience rates. People are willing to punish male and female students in equal proportions. The physical gender of the punishing participant also has no effect on the results.
First author Tomasz Grzyb and his colleagues noticed an element that was overlooked in the existing literature. No studies have directly investigated whether the physical gender of an authority figure influences compliance. The research team wanted to know whether male or female scientists elicited different responses from participants. Theoretical models of social influence suggest that social influence can go in either direction.
One theory suggests that men are often perceived as having higher status in public life. Based on standard social stereotypes, men naturally demand more respect and may push people to blindly follow the rules. Competing theories suggest that women are often perceived as warmer and more approachable. This familiarity could theoretically make participants like the scientist more and increase their willingness to cooperate with the shocking procedure.
To test the dynamics, Guzib and his team recruited 80 volunteers for clinical testing. The latest setup utilized a modified framework designed to protect participants’ psychological well-being. The latest version stops the test at a small threshold rather than allowing the voltage to rise to extreme simulation levels. This limits exposure to stress while also allowing scientists to measure a person’s willingness to harm others.
Participants arrived at a designated facility to conduct the memory study. A scientist disguised as a psychology professor met them in the room. Half of the volunteers were introduced to a male professor. The other half met with female professors.
Actual participants were assigned as teachers. The fake learners were led to an adjacent room where they communicated via a two-way audio system. The teacher reads a list of paired syllables through the microphone. If the learner gave a wrong answer, the teacher had to press the switch on the mechanical generator.
Each time an error occurred, the teacher had to proceed to the next voltage setting. The switch was clearly labeled with a warning label explaining the severity of the damage. As the shock escalated, actors in other rooms responded by expressing their pain louder and louder. If the teacher stopped or refused to turn on, the standing professor issued a standard verbal reprimand to enforce compliance.
For certain volunteers, the trial ended if they refused to proceed after four consecutive verbal orders. It was also determined whether the 10th button on the generator was successfully reached. The experimenter recorded how many people reached the end. The final data revealed that the scientist’s physical gender made almost no difference to the behavior of the people in the room.
Exactly 88 percent of the group followed every instruction from the female professor. In contrast, 90 percent of the volunteers obeyed every command given by the male professor. The difference between these two results was not statistically significant. The particular demographic identity of the scientists had no real impact on whether the volunteers chose to inflict pain.
The team also measured secondary factors. They counted how many times the scientists had to give strict verbal instructions. They specifically tracked the exact voltage levels at which a small number of disobedient individuals chose to rebel. Neither of these measures showed differences based on the gender of the authority figure.
This small laboratory study had several methodological limitations. The surprisingly high compliance rate means that very few participants showed any instances of rebellion. The researchers suspected that this dynamic might be hiding subtle psychological changes regarding sexism and authority. To collect more diverse data, the researchers launched a second project using a digital surveying platform.
This online activity recruited nearly 800 Polish internet users. They were asked to read and imagine the same scenario as the shock generator room. Half of the group imagined taking orders from a female professor, and half imagined taking orders from a male professor. Subjects had to indicate exactly when to stop the operation and refuse to press any more buttons.
The digital simulation also allowed the team to conduct psychological surveys. This study measured ambivalent sexism and recorded participants’ beliefs in traditional gender stereotypes. Scientists suspected that people who scored high on sexism scales would balk when given orders by a female leader. This hypothesis posits that systemic bias causes people to resent the fact that women hold dominant academic positions.
Once again, the gender of the imaginary scientist did nothing to change the average obedience mark. The participants were fully motivated to shock the hypothetical victims, regardless of who was running the show. Research on sexism has yielded a series of unexpected insights. Participants who exhibited higher levels of systemic sexism reported an increased willingness to actually harm their learners.
This increase in obedience occurred similarly in both the male and female scientist conditions. The authors suggest that this result is tied to a huge psychological concept known as authoritarianism. Sexism is often correlated with an overarching psychological respect for rigid social hierarchies. People who strongly support traditional social structures are generally more likely to accept orders without asking questions.
Researchers theorize that general adherence to hierarchy may overcome specific gender biases. Someone who strongly respects the title of university professor may completely ignore the biological sex of the person running the lab. Established professional roles provide unique forms of status that override standard assumptions. They argue that when authority is embedded within clearly defined social roles, the physical characteristics of the person commanding the room are diminished.
The authors mention several caveats regarding their work. Assessing human compliance through virtual online scenarios lacks the visceral tension of face-to-face confrontations. What people claim to do on the internet is rarely an exact match to what they do in the real world. The research team still notes that a combination of physical and digital testing provides a strong initial basis for studying this variable.
Regional differences also provide scope for future investigation. These trials were held in Poland. National economic data points out that the gender pay gap in Poland is slightly lower than the European Union average. The deeply culturally ingrained presence of women in professional management positions may skew results toward equality.
Similar research in countries with more intense rifts might reveal different patterns of rebellion motivation. Future attempts may include a completely different type of authority figure. Business executives and military personnel can provoke very different reactions than mild-mannered academics. The research team recommends explicitly measuring authoritarianism in conjunction with other personality traits in future laboratory simulations.
There is tremendous scientific utility in reporting scenarios in which variables are unable to change human behavior. This prevents future investigators from relying on untested assumptions about male dominance in leadership roles. Based on these two experiments, we find that an individual’s ability to demand compliance is not limited in any way by physical characteristics. In fact, the researchers conclude that pathological authority is “gender-insensitive.”
The study, “Authority knows no gender – The influence of gender on the exercise of obedience in Milgram’s experiment,” was authored by Tomasz Grzyb, Dariusz Dolinski, and Katarzyna Cantarello.
