Talk:Obedience

Forty-nine charismatic virtues

Some content has been moved to Forty-nine charismatic virtues. Peter Manchester 13:13, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article consist of snippets of what it seems to be original research. We need attributions and citations from notable sources to substatitate the current text. Please help make this article compliant with Wikipedia policies. Thanks. --ZappaZ 23:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Already done it, my friends :-) JCraw 12:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar

This article needs extensive copyediting for grammar and spelling. -- The Anome 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

...and substantial improvement in every other regard. Flagged for {expert} attention. -- The Anome 13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's been referenced, i've checked the book in it's 3 editions, and the information is valid. I reverted because again, i can't shake the feeling this was done with far less than neutral intentions; afterall, this topic has, and is used by SEVERAL examination boards in the United Kingdom, as well as other european countries. Unless this is SEVERELY wrong, which is juxtaposed to the quanitifcation process which goes on in these places; i.e Creationism not being in biology. Very very suspicious. James S 20:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you explain what "which is juxtaposed to the quanitifcation process" means? -- The Anome 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hofling hospital experiment

The Hofling hospital experiment article is more-or-less orphaned. I don't want to add experiments willy-nilly to this article, but I'm leaning toward adding a short bit on it. Any objections?Cretog8 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see this well-known study added. Neezes (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar problems

I have begun fixing up the spelling and grammar. Kathy (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I finished copyediting this article. Someone might want to check to make sure none of my edits changed the meaning. I don't think they did, but some of the language was so dense I had trouble understanding what it meant myself. The article still does not read very gracefully, but at least you can understand what you're reading now. Kathy (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a read through to check everything is alright! Pheebalicious (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems to good to me. Very readable. Pheebalicious (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit and footnote tags

I found this article in the January 2007 section of WP:COPY and discovered only minimal copyediting was required. However, I did object to the text "obedience to God" being linked to Religion because not all religion is about that; if the in-text reference to religion is necessary (and I believe it is not as it is quite obvious), feel free to add something to the effect of "(eg. religion)". I also removed the footnote tag because the article's reference list is presented as in-text citations. If more citations are required, please use the {{fact}} template. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

military?

Is there anything at all on obedience from the standpoint of the military? That'd be something neat to add. I'm researching for an essay on Milgram, and was wishing I could snag some nice sources from a Military Obedience section.... Darn. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obedience or Just do it dumb

Obedience is a form of operant conditioning in which a subject submitts to moral engagements through demand. Also known as a positive response to request for compliance and conformancy.-Hines2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.86 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Moral Assimilation or Stringent Conformancy

Human Compliance or Dog Training? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.218.86 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

traducir al ingles

ara atender esta población de animales se tiene la participación de 120 trabajadores (contemplando médicos veterinarios y auxiliares de zootecnistas), teniendo presente que el zoológico depende de una Dirección General de Zoológicos de la Ciudad de México y que se trabaja los 365 días del año a cada especie de ave se le alimentaba con una dieta especifica a sus necesidades. Se contaba con un equipo de 300 personas destinadas exclusivamente a la atención de los animales y su salud. La colección también incluía grandes jaulas de madera que alojaban carnívoros diseñadores, ingenieros, biólogos y veterinarios, trabajó en todos los aspectos del proyecto, buscando cubrir los cuatro objetivos fundamentales de un zoológico moderno, es decir; recreación, educación, investigación y conservación de especies silvestres. Durante más de setenta años, la exhibición se clasificó de acuerdo a los grupos taxonómicos: primates felinos, cánidos, herbívoros, aves, reptiles, etc. El concepto cambió para reflejar el hecho de que los animales viven juntos en la naturaleza, por lo que ahora se agruparon conforme a zonas bioclimáticas de acuerdo con su hábitat natural. Se presentaron cuatro climas; frió y húmedo ( bosque templado y litoral ), frío y seco (pradera), cálido y húmedo (selva húmeda tropical) cálido y seco (zonas áridas y sabana). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.26.90 (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Live Long and Prosper

One of the stipulations of long life and prosperity is Obedience to parents..... the other is respect/honor ........see Eph6:1-3

Live Long and Prosper

One of the stipulations of long life and prosperity is Obedience to parents..... the other is respect/honor ........see Eph6:1-3

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.98.186 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 

Updates and expansions to the experimental section

The experimental section is one area in this article that could be improved. I am currently working on reviewing some of the more modern literature (beyond Milgram) on obedience, and will try to update it within the next few days. Some of the areas that I am working on include the relationship between obedience and disobedience, obedience and college students, and obedience to tax authorities to name a few. jataylor90 (talk), 20:22 18 April 2012

Student edit timeline, Spring 2012

As a senior capstone project, students are working improve the content of selected articles. More details are on the course page. Student first edits are due April 20, then we'll spend a week reviewing. Final project is due by May 14, 2012. Thanks for your encouragement and support. Greta Munger (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Senior Capstone Peer Edit #1

Hey Jackson, below are some suggestions I have regarding your obedience page updates.

-The intro section seemed like it needed more citations. Many of the sentences were assertions and statements that would be helpful to be supported with a specific citation.

-Also in the intro, I liked the statement about sin and virtue, but felt it didn't belong in the first few sentences of the definition. Maybe you can put that later in the intro and have a leading sentence connect the remark better.

-In the section "Modern Methods" the sentence, "Burger's method was identical to Milgram's except when the shocks reached 150 volts, participants decided to do and then the experiment ended (base condition)" didn't make sense to me. It seems like the "decided to do" part was a typo. Could you clarify the difference in this study better?

-I'm not convinced this is the best way to do it, but have you thought about putting "Classic Methods" and "Classic Results" together and then "Modern Methods" and "Modern Results"? I had a little bit of a challenge remembering what result matched what method when reading multiple methods and then multiple results. Organizing this info in a different way may help.

-Add a citation after the first sentence under the "Implications" section

-Can you add any more information to the "Applications of Obedience" section? I thought this section was pretty interesting but only had one sentence regarding findings. Perhaps you could describe the research further or reasoning behind their findings?

-I think you should put in a formal citation under the Hofling hospital experiment. The link is helpful, and the research is well described, but a formal link could be helpful for anyone wanting to see the paper. Also, the section while important to the subject, seemed a little random. Perhaps this section would be better placed in the "Classic Methods" section? Or maybe you could talk about the research further on how it applies cultural obedience or obedience training, since those are the sections it's next to.

-I liked the section on obedience training but is there any sort of empirical research you can cite some of the statements to? Have there been any studies on military obedience that you can reference?

Overall, I really enjoyed reading your page on obedience! I thought you covered a wide area of the subject and did a great job explaining major methods and results. My major suggestions would be to put in citations in areas where they're needed and see if there is a more fluid way you can organize the page. I think you have a lot of good information, but the organization seemed a little random for some parts. Good luck, and let me know if you want me to clarify any of my suggestions. Maxwellshaw (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Edit #2

My recommendations would be:

-The introduction needs a bit of revision for citations and clarification. I think that the sin and virtue example is interesting, but a bit colloquial. I don't know if it can be worked in anywhere else, but I think that the objective explanation of obedience below that is sufficient for the introduction.

-The Methods section could use headings for the Milgram and Stanford experiments. I think that this would make it easier for someone to skim through to find what they need. I also think that some of the wording in the Methods is a bit confusing, so clarification of some results would be good.

-There are two headings of Cultural Attitudes to Obedience. I think that the longer one was your improvement to the original, but be sure to remove or combine those. Also, the sections need citations.

-The order could be reworked a bit. I think that the methods presented separately from the later field experiment is kind of confusing. The field experiment just seemed plopped in the middle of unrelated information. I think that it could be placed in with the Methods, especially if you add headings for Milgram and Stanford. I agree with Max that the Classical and Modern methods and results could possibly be combined to provide an explanation that is easier to follow without having to refer back to previous sections as much.

-The Experimental Studies of Human Obedience is repetitious and can probably be removed.

I think that the information that you added is very comprehensive and interesting. The explanations of the studies and their findings are all in the article, just need to be reworked to flow a bit better. You have a lot of information to work with, so good job getting all of that. A few supplemental additions and reworking will make this page great! Let me know if you need any clarifications of the recommendations! Good work so far!

Anna B. Smith (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You should also mention somewhere the notion of "Just following orders", or a few sentences on the role of obedience legally....though this may be outside the scope of your pysch class.Smallman12q (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to peer edits & my contributions to the page

I am writing this to clarify my edits to this page. I did not write the obedience intro, I just added a quote by Milgram at the end. My contributions were adding the methods (both classical and modern) sections and their results. I also added in the sections regarding some of the implications and applications of obedience research. I was told by Dr. Munger that I the scope of my contribution was to be working the sections that I added, not making alterations to the existing article where I did not have the citations needed to rework it (although I did move around some of the existing research so that it fit better with what I added). Also, below is a list of the references that I used for my sections (per Dr. Munger's request). I am still working on the final edits, but the majority of my contributions have already been added.

References

Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.

Blass, T. (1995). Right-Wing authoritarianism and role as predictors of attributions about obedience to authority. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 99-100.

Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1-11.

Burger, J., Girgis, Z., & Manning, Z. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants’ comments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 460-466.

Burley, P., & McGuinness, J., (1977). Effects of social intelligence on the Milgram paradigm. Psychological Reports, 40, 767-770.

Cadsby, C., Maynes, E., & Trivedi, V. (2006). Tax compliance and obedience to authority at home and in the lab: A new experimental approach. Experimental Economics, 9, 343-359.

Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.

Haslam, S., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 615-622.

Hinrichs, K. (2007). Follower propensity to commit crimes of obedience: The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 69-76.

Kilham, W.; Mann, L. (1974). "The level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 696-702.

Meeus, W., & Raaijmakers, Q. (1986). Administrative obedience: Carrying out orders to use psychological-administrative violence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 311-324.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

Miranda, F.; Caballero, B., Gomez, & Zamorano M. (1981). "Obediencia a la autoridad [Obedience to Authority]". Psiquis 2: 212-221.

Navarick, D. & Bellone, J. (2009) Time of semester as a factor in participants’ obedience to instructions to perform an aversive task. The Psychological Record, 60, 101-114.

Passini, S. & Morseli, D. (2010). The obedience-disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1-14.

Shanab, M.; Yahka, K. (1978). "A cross-cultural study of obedience". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 11: 530-536.

Skitka, L., Bauman, C., & Lytle, B. (2009). Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 567-758.

jataylor90 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"(Coleman,2006)"

In the intro, the words ‘a form of social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure’ are then followed by the citation reference "(Coleman,2006)".

We shouldn't be quoting material we can't provide a cite for, and we shouldn't be inserting references to sources for which we don't have a real cite, either. I've come up blank trying to use Google scholar to source this. An Amazon book search on Colman's Oxford Dictionary of Psychology (which is presumably what was intended) comes up blank, too.

Can anyone come up with a real cite for this sentence? -- The Anome (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Got it! "social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure" comes from Colman, Andrew (2009). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199534063. -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Factors

There is some useful information on power/prestige, but a lot more could be said about factors that influence confomity level. For example, Milgram (1974) did a number of variations of his study and compared results based on factors such as was the victim in the same room or not, was the authority figure in the same room or not, what happens if other people dissent/disobey... These as well as individual differences such as personality (e.g. authoritarian personality, self-esteem, age, etc could be added. Neezes (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Obedience

What is obedience 63.143.124.234 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)