A N O BSERVATIONAL S TUDY IN G ENDER O BEDIENCE Jacqueline Behr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Mar 31, 2023 107 likes •218 views

A N O BSERVATIONAL S TUDY IN G ENDER O BEDIENCE Jacqueline Behr & Annalyn Belarmino A BSTRACT Previous studies have displayed no gender differences in obedience This study was conducted to test this lack of differences Blow-up

SLIDE 1

AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY IN GENDER OBEDIENCE

Jacqueline Behr & Annalyn Belarmino

SLIDE 2

ABSTRACT

 Previous studies have displayed no gender

differences in obedience

 This study was conducted to test this lack of

differences

 Blow-up punching doll on College Campus with a

“Do Not Touch” sign

 Men more disobedient?

SLIDE 3

BACKGROUND

 Milgram Study  Men only  Replication  Berger (2009)

 Women showed same results with more anxiety

 Transmitter Role (Kilham & Mann, 1974)

 Women less obedient

 Reactance  no gender difference (Seemann, Buboltz, Jenkins,

Soper, Woller, 2004)

 Aggression  17 month old boys were 2.62x more likely to belong to

the high-aggressive latent class (Baillargeon et al.,

2007)

SLIDE 4

HYPOTHESIS

Researched through observation, results will conclude that men are more willing to disobey and touch the blow up punching doll rather than women on the College campus.

SLIDE 5

METHODS

 Blow-up doll with “Do Not Touch” signs

n both sides

 Location – College’s free speech area in

front of the cafeteria

 Middle of the week; in the afternoon  Researcher collaboration – set up and

recording

 One inside Cafeteria before set-up  One places doll and records from afar  Chart

SLIDE 6

How Many People Passed By

Male Female

M F

Groups Fully Conformed Groups

SLIDE 7

RESULTS

 Sample Size : n= 462  Men: n= 263  Women: n= 199  1st day vs. 2nd day  1st Day: 5.88% of men disobeyed, 3.63% of women

disobeyed

 2nd Day: 3.37% of men disobeyed, 0% of women

disobeyed

 All together

SLIDE 8

96% 4%

Male

Obedient Disobedient 1% 99%

Female

Obedient Disobedient

OBEDIENT DISOBEDIENT TOTAL MEN 252 11 263 WOMEN 197 2 199 TOTAL 449 13 462

SLIDE 9

CONCLUSION

 Difference in obedience levels  Doesn’t support other studies  Aggression?  Confounding variables  Trial tests  Look of sign  More research is needed

SLIDE 10

REFERENCES

 Baillargeon, R., Boivin, M., Cote, S., Keenan, K., Perusse, D.,

Tremblay, R., Wu, H., Zoccolillo, M., (2007). Gender Differences in Physical Aggression: A prosective population- based survey of Children and after 2 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 13-26.

 Berger, J (2009). Replicating Milgram. Would people still

bey today? American Psychologist, 1-11.

 Buboltz W., Jenkins S., Seemann E., Soper B., & Woller K.

(2004). Ethnic and gender differences in psychological reactance: the importrance of reactance in multicultural

counseling. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 167-176.

 Kilham & Mann (1974). Level of Destructive Obedience as a

Function of Transmitter and Executant roles in the Milgram Obedience Paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 696-702.