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

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 punching doll on College Campus with a “Do Not Touch” sign  Men more disobedient?

B ACKGROUND  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)

H YPOTHESIS 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.

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

How Many Male Female People Passed By M F Groups Fully Conformed Groups

R ESULTS  Sample Size : n= 462  Men: n= 263  Women: n= 199  1 st day vs. 2 nd day  1 st Day: 5.88% of men disobeyed, 3.63% of women disobeyed  2 nd Day: 3.37% of men disobeyed, 0% of women disobeyed  All together

OBEDIENT DISOBEDIENT TOTAL MEN 252 11 263 WOMEN 197 2 199 TOTAL 449 13 462 Female Male 4% 1% Obedient Obedient Disobedient Disobedient 96% 99%

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

R EFERENCES  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 obey 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.