The Impact of Instructions, Gender Differences, Group Status in Obedience

1 | P a g e

EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

FIRST SEMESTER S. Y. 2014-2015

U.E Manila – Experimental Psychology BS5C 2014

Author Note

Aedrielyn G. Pichay, Ezra M. Aldave, Jessa F.

Baliguat, Joeylane C. Linezo and Honey Ronathy M. Taṅedo are 3rd year Psychology

students under the Department of Behavioral

Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the East-Manila.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aedrielyn G. Pichay, the

Department of Behavioral Sciences, College

of Arts and Sciences, University of the East-Manila, 2219 C.M Recto Ave. Manila,

Philippines (632) 7355471. E-mail:

[email protected]

The Impact of Instructions, Gender Differences and Group Status in Obedience

Aedrielyn G. Pichay, Ezra M. Aldave, Jessa F. Baliguat, Joeylane C. Linezo and Honey Ronathy M. Taṅedo

University of the East-Manila, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Behavioral Sciences.

ABSTRACT

This study examined the impact of construction of instructions in obedience and the effect of gender

differences and group status in obedience regardless of the instructions given. Participants (n=1, 306

and n=1,298 in gender participants) were chosen through systematic random sampling, they were

chosen as those who walked by or pass by the setups as whether they obey or disobey the instructions

indicated in every setup. There are 3 setups all throughout the experiment, every set up has two types

of instructions, one positive and the other one is negative. The reactions of the participants were

observed from a discreet location with the use of a hidden camera. The researchers predicted that the

construction of the instructions will affect the obedience of the respondents, through which people

will more likely to obey the positively-worded instructions than the negatively-worded instructions.

Females are more likely to obey and group status will affect the obedience. As predicted, more people

obey the positively-worded instructions. Group status and gender differences did affect the obedience

of the respondents.

Keywords: Obedience, Instructions, Group, Gender, Positively-Worded, Negatively-Worded

INTRODUCTION

Words are powerful. Words communicate, deliver

information, express feelings, inspire others, give

guidance, teach and so forth. Words that we choose have

an impact to the people around us. In giving orders, one

must use the proper words, not just to sound rude, but to

encourage them to obey. Obedience is one of the essentials

of the society. All of us can see orders everywhere, at

school, in our home, in the roads. Without obedience,

naught would exist, but chaos and anarchy (Leveillee,

2011). There are a lot of factors that can influence,

obedience, like the words you used to relay orders group

status, whether they are alone or in groups and their

gender. How can the construction of orders or the

instructions, gender differences and group status affect

obedience?

One theory that prompted the research about

obedience is the Social Impact Theory by Bibb Latané, it is

delineated as any variance in the physiological, cognitive,

emotional, and/or psychological matters of an individual as

a result of real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of

other individuals. This theory illustrates that social impact

is a social force fields that engrained us, leading us to

behave or act in a certain ways (Jackson, 1987). Social

impact is the result of social forces, including the strength

of the source of impact, the immediacy of the event, and

the number of sources exerting the impact. The more

targets of impact that exist, the less impact each individual

target has.

One of the famous researches made about obedience

is the experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram (1963) in

Yale University wherein he focuses on the conflict

between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

mailto:[email protected]

2 | P a g e




He determined the capacity of a person in obeying

instructions if it involved harming another person. The

result of his experiment is that two-thirds of his

participants obey until the very last instruction wherein an

electric shock up to 450 volts were given to their students

if they make mistake. According to Milgram, obedience to

authority is ingrained in all us all the way we brought up.

There is no gender difference in obedience (Behr &

Belarmino, 2012). One source that prompted the research

about obedience is the study of Brown, Kern and Morgan

(2008) concerning the effect of group status and gender

differences in obedience, their study indicated that people

walking alone were more obedient than people traveling in

groups and that men and women did not significantly

differ in obedience. Their results were supported by other

researchers on sex differences in obedience (Blass, 2000).

Another source that prompted the research is the study by

Zimbardo (1973) which indicated that people conform to

roles that they expected to play, especially if the

stereotypes are well-established. The male guards took on

the stereotypical role of becoming mean and aggressive

towards the prisoners, they were influenced by pressures to

conform to the stereotype of a prison guard (Wren, 1999).

This demonstrates that profound established

generalizations can impact an individual's conduct, the

decisions he or she makes, and how they respond to

distinctive circumstances.

In the Philippines, one of the negative traits of the

Filipinos is being passive and their lack of initiative.

Filipinos tend to wait for orders on what should be done

before doing something. Filipinos turn to other people like

the government leaders for instructions. This shows that

Filipino’s lack of self-reliance. A study that is done in

three different countries and the Philippines was part of it,

in which Liane Pena-Alampay (2005) of Ateneo de Manila

University handled the study. She found out that the 155

Filipinos Youth she recruited from various public and

private schools are the most naturally obedient to their

parents as compared to the other two countries and that

Filipinos are the most obedient to the rules imposed by

their society and authoritative parental figures. These

results suggest that youth who see their parents as the

authoritative grant greater legitimacy of authority and

more obligation to obey and report greater obedience.

Parents also exert greater governance by setting more

rules. (Pena-Alampay, et al., 2005)

The relatively sparse research about obedience has

left room for further research. First, much of the research

has focused more on the difference of obedience between

genders, though all of them are complimenting each other.

Second, they focused more on the obedience on authority,

like the replication of Milgram’s experiment in 1963.

Third, few formal researches about obedience in the

Philippines is conducted, albeit there are a number of

experimental videos about obedience it is not enough to

give satisfying results. Fourth, is that there are no

researches about the effect of instructions in obedience.

Though, the construction of instructions researches is hard

to find, the researchers have found a study wherein it

indicated that method effects models were invariant across

gender and age, but not across countries, method effects

were associated with both positively and negatively

worded items (Lindwall, et al; 2012). Positive attribute

frames are more persuasive than negative ones, whereas

negative goal frames are more persuasive than positive

ones (Putrevu; 2010.)

3 | P a g e




Harrelson (2009) released an article on how to

communicate effectively with young children, in her study,

she indicated that using positive communication with

children using more “Do’s” than “Don’ts” elicit positive

response. They respond more quickly to positive demands

than negative ones. If children want to feel that they have

some control over their actions, then most likely adults

will want it too. That is why choosing the words that you

will use with instructions are important, people have the

tendency to negate orders that tell them what not to do,

rather than telling them what to do.

Cognitive scientists continue to explore how

the brain processes negative versus positive sentence

structures. Bergland (2012) confirms the power of

affirmative language, also it indicated that by choosing

positive word elicits an improvement in mindset and

performance. Additionally, a well-known psychiatrist John

Reitmann (2007) mentioned that “It takes an average

person almost twice as long to understand a sentence that

uses a negative approach than it does to understand a

positive sentence.” Using positive words are rather

effective than using negative words. Moreover, Estes &

Adelman (2008) posited that negative words elicit slower

lexical decisions and naming than positive words.

Focusing on the construction of warning labels the

study of Glock, Muller, Ritter (2012) indicated that the

representation of warning labels may determine if a person

will obey or not. Their study focuses on the effect of

cigarettes warning labels. According to their study

research on warning labels printed on cigarette packages

has shown that fear inducing health warnings might

provoke defensive responses. The objective of their study

is whether reformulating statements into questions could

avoid defensive reactions. They presented smoker either

warning labels formulated as questions or textual warning

labels, graphic warning labels, no warning labels.

Participants’ smoking-related risk perception was higher

after exposure to warning labels formulated as questions or

no warning labels than after exposure to text or graphic

warning labels. Their results indicate that reformulating

statements into questions can avoid defensive responses

elicited by textual- and graphic warning labels.

Therefore, the current study helps us to understand

how the construction of the instructions, group status and

gender differences affects the obedience of the respondents

specifically with an attractive stimulus. A pilot study was

conducted to check the consistency and effectiveness of

the experiment. Respondents were exposed to positively

and negatively worded instructions in every setup, their

responses were then recorded whether they will obey or

disobey the instructions. When considering the positively

worded instructions, the researchers predicted that people

will most likely obey as compared to the negatively

worded responses; females will be more obedient and

people in group will most likely to disobey.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

As Instructions, Gender Differences and Group

Status affect the obedience of individuals, the Social

Impact Theory of Bibb Latané confers the relation of each

variable. This theory states that the likelihood that a

person will respond to social influence will increase with,

Strength or how important the influencing group of people

are to you. Immediacy or how close the group are to you

(in space and time) at the time of the influence attempt.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/cognition

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/neuroscience

4 | P a g e




Number or how many people there are in the group

(Jackson, 1987).

In this experiment, the researchers recognize that

Social Impact Theory describes the results they gathered.

Specifically, the group status and gender of the

respondents fits the explanation of the theory. The group

status of the respondents affected their obedience, since

they are persuaded by the other members to disobey the

set-up, consciously or not. Gender, in another approach,

influenced the reaction of the respondents towards the

written instructions. Male are more inclined to disobey the

set-up since their strength is self-direction. Females obeyed

the setups because in Filipino cultures, they are expected to

be reserved, modest, and obedient.

The impact can not only be observed visually, it can also

be thoughts, attitudes, incentives, and psychological state.

First, the construction of the instruction is one of the

sources of impact, the positively and negatively worded

instruction as the main variable of this factor conjugate as

the target of influence. Since the study’s dependent

variable is obedience, it suggests that the appeal of the

constructed instruction would give or show the possible

effect to the participant’s obedience. Second, in view of the

gender differences, females are more persuaded in

following instructions, Latané applied this theory to

previous studies done on imitation and conformity as well

as an embarrassment, the psychosocial law. Females are

more hesitant to disobey and males were deemed less

likely to be resistant to conformity. Lastly, considering the

group status, the Dynamic Social Impact Theory developed

also by Latané and his colleagues later on is considered an

extension of the Social Impact Theory as it uses its basic

principles, mainly that social influence is determined by

the strength, immediacy, and number of sources present, to

describe how majority and minority group members

influence one another.

METHOD

Participants

The participants were chosen based on the

Systematic Random Sampling type of probability

sampling. Every fifth (5th) respondent who walked by the

setups in the study were noted and selected to be part of

the data. Respondents were consisted of solo individuals

and by group individuals, regardless of their number they

were counted as one. There were 1,306 total number of

participants (both in groups and individuals) However, a

total of 1,298 respondents was only taken for the gender

participants, due to some of the respondents in groups have

mixed of females and males, they were excluded thus 658

respondents for males and 640 for females.

Materials

The data was gathered through the use of hidden

video cameras. A different setup was used during the pilot

study, which consists of a white plastic chair, on top of it is

a pink box with a darker pink cover has a design of hearts

and ‘I Love You’ to make it more attractive and the

instructions were indicated on top of the box. The

instructions were “THANK YOU FOR NOT OPENING

THE BOX” (Positively-Worded Instruction) and “DO

NOT OPEN THE BOX” (Negatively-Worded Instruction).

The first actual testing day, a wooden box covered

by an orange paper to make it more attractive has a red

button and a lightning bulb on top with its corresponding

instructions. The instructions were “THANK YOU FOR

5 | P a g e




NOT PRESSING THE BUTTON” (Positively-Worded

Instruction) and “DO NOT PRESS THE BUTTON”

(Negatively-Worded Instruction).

The second day of actual testing, which consists of a

white plastic chair on top of it is a red box with a cover has

a design of hearts and ‘I Love You’ to make it more

attractive and the instructions were indicated on top of the

box. The instructions were “WE WILL APPRECIATE IF

YOU WILL NOT LIFT THE COVER” (Positively-

Worded Instruction) and “DO NOT LIFT THE COVER”

(Negatively-Worded Instruction).

The third and last day of actual testing, which

consists of a white plastic chair on top of it is a checkered

pink box with a red cover. And several holes on its sides,

instructions were placed on the top of the cover. The

instruction were “WE WILL BE GRATEFUL IF YOU

WILL NOT PEEK INSIDE THE BOX” (Positively-

Worded Instruction) and “DO NOT PEEK INSIDE THE

BOX” (Negatively-Worded Instruction).

The illustrations of the setups used are in the

APPENDIX.

Procedure

The researchers observed the participants of the

experiment for three (3) different days, within six (6) hours

a day. The experiment started at 12 noon through 6 o’clock

in the evening. The experimenters covertly observed and

noted every fifth (5th) respondent and their response to the

given setup. Their responses can vary whether they will

obey or disobey the instructions indicated in the setup.

Obedience is defined in the experiment as those

who will follow or obey the instructions, characterized by

ignoring, touching the setup, but not disregarding the

instructions, attempting to disobey or disregard the

instructions and getting near the setup. Disobedience is

defined in the experiment as those who will fully disregard

or not follow the instructions written in the setup.

On the first day, the experimenters positioned a

setup in front of the College of Arts and Sciences Office,

also known as Batibot. The setup with a red bulb and

button was observed with positively addressed instruction

“THANK YOU FOR NOT PRESSING THE

BUTTON” for the first three (3) hours, and then replaced

with negatively worded instruction “DO NOT PRESS

THE BUTTON” for the next three (3) hours.

While on the second day of the experiment, the

researchers arranged a set-up of boxes at the 3rd floor

connecting bridge between the Engineering Building and

the CAS Building with the negatively worded instruction

“DO NOT LIFT THE COVER”, for the first three (3)

hours, and the positively worded instruction “THANK

YOU FOR NOT LIFTING THE COVER” for another

three hours.

Lastly, the third day, the experimenters placed a set-

up consisting a box with holes in Lepanto gate. The

researchers witnessed the positively worded instruction

“WE WILL BE GRATEFUL IF YOU WILL NOT

PEEK INSIDE THE BOX” in the first three (3) hours,

followed by the negatively worded instruction “DO NOT

PEEK INSIDE THE BOX” for the succeeding three (3)

hours.

6 | P a g e




RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

A manipulation check was done by conducting a

pilot study to check the success of the experiment if there

will be quantifiable data and also to know the extraneous

variables that could affect the data so that we could create

a measure to prevent to control that. In the actual testing

days different setups were used to erase familiarity and

arouse curiosity and also to check biases in gathering data.

Also by making sure that the time interval before putting

the next instruction has 3 hours interval to lessen the

chance that the same group of people or respondents will

be seeing it. Also, every setup was conducted in different

non-consecutive days and different locations to lessen the

chance that the respondents will be accustomed to seeing

boxes and also to let the news die down a bit that a

mysterious box with an instruction, were lying around the

area. Every instruction was printed in the same type of

paper and was encoded with the same font, size and color

to eliminate biases between the instructions.

The Impact of Instructions, Group Status and Gender

Differences in Obedience

Obedience and Instruction Type

The researchers predicted that the construction of

the instructions will affect the obedience of the

respondents, through which people will more likely to

obey the positively-worded instructions than the

negatively-worded instructions. Using a statistical method,

specifically Chi-Square test, it showed that positively-

worded instructions have a significant effect on the

obedience of the respondents, X2=4.93, C.V.0.05= 3.84,

d.f= 1 (see Figure 1 & 2). The P-Value is 0.02637. The

result is significant at p < 0.05. A higher percentage of

respondent obey the positive sign (53% versus 46.42%)

and a higher percentage of respondents disobey the

negative sign (44.57% versus 55.43%).

Gender and Obedience

Also, we predicted that there will be a gender

inclination in obedience, through which more females will

more likely to obey setups. The results indicated that there

is a significant gender inclination in obeying the positive

setup, X2=75.33, C.V.0.05= 3.84, d.f= 1 (see Figure 3 & 4).

The P-Value is < 0.00001. The result is significant at p <

0.05. A higher percentage of women compared to men

obey the setups (95.31% versus 79.18%) and a higher

percentage of men disobey the positively-worded

instructions (20.82% versus 4.69%).

Group Status and Obedience

Additionally, we predicted that there will be a group

inclination in obedience, through which individuals who

passed by are more likely to obey than the people in group.

The results indicated that there is a significant inclination

when it comes to negative instructions, X2=141.31,

C.V.0.05= 3.84, d.f= 1 (see Figure 4 & 5). The P-Value is <

0.00001. The result is significant at p < 0.05. Indeed,

higher percentage of solo individuals compared to group

individuals obeyed the setups (95.69% versus 72.78%). On

the other hand, a higher percentage of group respondents

disobeyed the setups, compared to individual respondents

(27.22% versus 4.31%).

7 | P a g e




DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current study was to assess

whether there will be a significant effects on the obedience

of the respondents and the construction of instructions.

Also, to know if there will be a significant association

between the obedience of people in group and solo

individuals. And lastly, to know if there will be a

significant association between the obedience of male and

female respondents. We predicted that the construction of

the instructions will affect the obedience of the

respondents, through which people will more likely to

obey the positively-worded instructions than the

negatively-worded instructions. Females will more likely

to be obedient than males. And solo individuals will be

more obedient than people in group. In this study, the

setup with the positively worded-instructions elicit more

positive response than the negatively-worded instructions.

Thus, the assumptions was supported by the results. The

data gathered in the viewpoint of gender differences,

females got the highest percentage in obeying. And in

group status assumptions, solo individuals did obey the

setups compared to the respondents in group. Thus, all the

assumptions were fully supported by the results.

The findings on the obedience of the respondents in

relation to the construction of the instructions is

statistically significant, wherein a high number of

respondents obeyed the positively-worded instructions

compared to the negatively-worded one. Though, there is

no the same research that delve in with this type of topic,

according to Putrevu; (2010) using positive attribute

frames are more persuasive than negative ones, thus in

relation to the present study the mere fact that the

instructions that are positively-worded got the highest

obedience indicates that giving orders using positive words

will elicit obedience. Moreover, negative words elicit

slower lexical decisions and naming than positive words

(Estes & Adelman, 2008). Just like in a study wherein they

used warning labels to find compliance effectiveness, it

indicated that the representation of warning labels may

determine if a person will obey or not (Glock, Muller,

Ritter, 2012). We surmise that by using positive words the

respondents were being reinforced than being commanded,

thus, according to a well-known psychiatrist John

Reitmann, he mentioned that by using a negative approach

takes longer than usual for an average person to understand

it, compared to a positive sentence. Additionally, using

affirmative language is effective (Bergland, 2012), also, it

indicated that by choosing positive words elicits an

improvement in mindset and performance. Thus, when the

respondents read the instructions in the setups they were

motivated to obey rather than disobey, because instead of

telling them what not to do rather they were told what to

do, that is why, according to Harrelson (2009), using more

“Do’s” than “Don’ts” elicit positive response, that by

giving them more positive demands is more effective than

giving negative demands.

The findings of this study when it comes to gender

differences in obedience is consistent with the study of

Brown, Kern and Morgan indicated that females have the

higher number of obedience compared to male

respondents, though their finding does not statistically

differ from male and female. On the contrary, Behr and

Belarmino (2012) study indicated that both male and

female obedience to instruction is the same. Since, both of

the studies are taken in different places, cultural and

individual differences must be taken into account.

Moreover, to support the assumptions and result of this

8 | P a g e




study, values and traits in sexual differences occur, this is

according to the study of Schwartz & Rubel (2005),

wherein they found out that certain values like the self-

direction value is more higher in men rather than in

females, which the value is concerned with independent

thought and action choosing. More males disobey

compared to the regardless of the type of instructions, can

be supported by one of the well-known studies in

obedience by Zimbardo (1973) wherein the result of his

study indicated that people conform to roles that they

expected to play, especially if the stereotypes are well-

established, that is why more males disobey. Another

possible explanation why more males compare to females

have a high number of disobedience, this could be due to

different stereotypical gender traits wherein the society’s

perceived trait for females must be sensitivity, sociability,

niceness, modesty (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Taking

this into account, females should be more cooperative and

obedient than males (Brown, Kern, Morgan, 2008) thus,

females has a tendency to do good, like in obeying

instructions for them not to deviate from the norms

expectations.

In the perspective of the assumptions that focused

on the group status of the respondents, our result was

statistically significant, wherein it means that being in a

group can affect obedience. Thus, in the study of Brown et

al (2008), their results indicated that people who passed by

the experiment obeyed rather than people in groups. In the

study made by Bond (2005) wherein the group size and

conformity will vary if they are in public or private place;

it indicated that being in a public place, conformity is

higher. Moreover, this can be explained by the fact that

more boys who passed by the setup is in a group, this can

be explained by the choice-shift research wherein it can

influence group effects; more people are likely to conform

in gender roles when they are in a group (Landman, 2005).

In the idea of social loafing phenomenon wherein people

exert less effort when in a group. Social loafing seems to

occur when people perform together in groups, whether or

not they must also perform alone (Harkins et al, 1980).

That is why, when they passed by the setups in groups, the

responsibility was segregated, and they will not be the only

one to be blamed for the consequences, also their

confidence level in disobeying is high due to their

companions, working in groups may be a way to boost

decisional confidence (Patalano & LeClair, 2011).

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH

Albeit our study was successful, there are some

shortcomings that future researchers should give

importance into. We have encountered some difficulties

with people who moved the setups and the signs, some

may have not taken it seriously this problem and may

provoke some of them to imitate that behavior, according

to the Social Learning Theory of Bandura, we learn from

others through imitation, that is why those who see the

people who moved the setups and those who have seen

other people who disobeyed the instructions, do it also

because no one approached them to put back the setups or

even told them not to disobey the instruction. Also,

according to Sparknote Editors (2007) people tend to obey

when they don’t see people disobeying. Besides, the study

was conducted in the campus wherein, familiarity with

social experiments are very high, if maybe the study was

conducted in a different location, the findings could be

different. When experiments are done in prestigious

institutions, obedience is high (Sparknote Editors, 2007).

9 | P a g e




Further, the tests were conducted in three different days,

though conducted with a passable interval this could have

affected the data, some must have guessed that what we

were doing is an experiment, also during our pilot study

wearing white uniform can alter the results. Also, the

experimenter included those people who ignored the

setups, there are certain factors that can affect this kind of

response, the respondent may be busy that is why they

ignored it or rather they didn’t notice it that is why they

ignored it. Additionally, the researchers did not use an

interscorer aside from the experimenters to assess the

gathering of data, which is why there can be a possibility

of experimenter bias.

These shortcomings in the research about the impact

of instructions, group status and gender in obedience could

elicit the continuance of this research in several directions.

First, examine the effect of symbols in giving instructions

or orders, since most of the instructions that can be seen

are using symbols rather than words. Second, try to do the

experiment with different setups in the same day if it will

gather the same result or not. Third, use a longer time

interval for different setups to have a clearer result. Fourth,

conduct the study in a place where no high numbers of

students are located, to know more about the impact of

words in obedience. Fifth, construct more persuasive

instructions to see more the impact of words in obedience.

Sixth, use interscorers aside from the experimenters to

avoid experimenter bias. Seventh, use a more

comprehensive operational definition for obedience, by

excluding those people who just ignored the setup. Last,

use a more attractive setup or design to know whether

curiosity as an effect in obedience.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the results indicated provide some

fascinating insights into the impact of positively-worded

and negatively-worded instructions in obedience. Also,

give another perspective when it comes to gender

differences in obedience. Lastly, it strengthen the findings

of other researches about the effect of group status in

obedience. Our results indicated that there is a significant

association in the obedience of the respondents between

the positively and negatively worded instructions. Females

are more inclined in following instructions regardless of

the type of instructions. And group status can affect

obedience, regardless of the instructions given to them.

Furthermore, the study indicated that obedience can be

dependent to the words used in giving instructions. Thus,

choosing the right words can elicit obedience, though there

is no gender and group status restriction with the response.

This research and other research to follow will contribute

to the knowledge of the disadvantages--- and possible

advantages of the impact of words used in giving

instructions in obedience. The results and shortcomings of

this study suggest that the experiment must focus more on

the construction of instructions to learn more about its

effect in obedience.

REFERENCES

Behr, J., Belarmino A. (2012). An Observational

Study in Gender Obedience. PT@CC ANNUAL

REPORT.

Bond, Rod (2005). Group Size and Conformity.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 331-

354.

10 | P a g e




Bergland, C. (2012). Choosing Positive Words

Improves Mindset and Performance. The

Athlete’s Way.

Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to Authority: Current

Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm.

Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Pub.

Brown, J., Coulter-Ken, P., Morgan, H. (2008).

Group Status And Gender Differences In

Obedience. Hanover College Research Design

and Statistics.

Estes, Z., Adelman, J.S. (2008). Automatic Vigilance

for Negative Words is Categorical General.

American Psychological Association Vol. 8,

No. 4, 453–457 1528-3542

Glock, S., Muller, B. C., Ritter, S.M., (2013).

Warning Labels Formulated as Questions

Positively-Influenced Smoking-Related Risk

Perception. Journal of Health Psychology. P.

252-262.

Harrelson, P. (2009). Communicating with young

children. Produced by Communications and

Marketing, College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University.

Jackson, J., (1987). Social Impact Theory: A Social

Forces Model of Influence. Theories of Group

Behavior. pp 111-124

Landman, D. (2005). Escalation in groups: An

Integration of the group decision-making and

escalation of commitment literature.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B:

The Sciences and Enginerring, 65 (10-B),

5446.

Leveillee, N. P. (2011). The Role of Obedience in

Society. Vol. 3 No. 05 pg. 1/1

Lindwall, M., Barkoukis, V., Grano, C. Et.Al. (2012).

Methods Effects: The Problem With Negatively

Versus Positively Keyed Items. Journal Of

Personality Assessment P.196-204.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67 (4), 371-378.

Patalano, A. L., LeClair, Z. (2011). The influence of

group decision making on indecisiveness-

related decisional confidence. Judgment and

Decision Making, Vol. 6, No. 1, February 2011,

pp. 163–175.

Peńa-Alampay, L., Darling,N., Cumsille, P. (2005).

Rules, Legitimacy Beliefs, Obligation to Obey,

and Parent-adolescent Conflict: A Chilean and

Filipino Comparison.

Peńa-Alampay, L., Darling, N., Cumsille, P. (2002).

Rules, Obligation to Obey, and Obedience: Age

Related Differences in Three Cultures.

Prentice, D. A., Carranza, E. (2002). What women

and men should be, shouldn’t be, allowed t and

don’t have to be: The Contents of Prescriptive

Stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly.

269-281

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3

11 | P a g e




Putrevu, S. (2010). An Examination Of Consumer

Response Toward Attributable-And Goal-

Framed Messages. Journal Of Advertising

Vol.39. No.3 P.5-24.

Schwartz, S., Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in

value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod

studies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology. 1010-1028.

Rousseau, G., & Wogalter. M. (2006). Research On

Warning Signs. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

NJ.

Sparknotes, Editor (2007). Social Psychology

(SparkNotes Psychology Guide Series) .

Wren, K. (1999). Behavioral Study of Obedience.

The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67 (4), 371-378.

Zimbardo, P.G. (1974). On ‘Obedience to authority’.

American Psychologist, 29(7), 556-567.

12 | P a g e




APPENDIX A

TABLE 1

COMPUTATION FOR SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN OBEDIENCE &

INSTRUCTIONS USING CHI-SQUARE TEST

Positive Negative Total

Obey 606 525 1131

Disobey 78 97 175

Total 684 622 1306

α =0.05

O E (O-E) (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

606 592.346 13.6539 186.429 0.31473

525 538.654 -13.654 186.429 0.3461

78 91.6539 -13.654 186.429 2.03406

97 83.3461 13.6539 186.429 2.23681

4.93169

d.f= 1

x^2= 4.93

c.v= 3.84

The P-Value is 0.02637. The result is significant at p < 0.05.

13 | P a g e




TABLE 2


GENDER DIFFERENCE USING CHI-SQUARE TEST

GENDER

OBEY DISOBEY TOTAL

MALE 521 137 658

FEMALE 610 30 640

TOTAL 1131 167 1298

O E (O-E) (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

521 573.342 -52.342 2739.69 4.77845933

137 84.6579 52.3421 2739.69 32.3619012

610 557.658 52.3421 2739.69 4.9128535

30 82.3421 -52.342 2739.69 33.2720797

75.3252937

α =0.05

d.f= 1

x^2= 75.33

c.v= 3.84

The P-Value is < 0.00001. The result is significant at p < 0.05.

14 | P a g e




TABLE 3


GROUP STATUS USING CHI-SQUARE TEST

GROUP STATUS

OBEY DISOBEY TOTAL

INDIVIDUAL 754 34 788

GROUP STATUS 377 141 518

TOTAL 1131 175 1306

O E (O-E) (O-E)^2 (O-E)^2/E

754 682.41 71.5896 5125.07 7.51024427

34 105.59 -71.59 5125.07 48.5376358

377 448.59 -71.59 5125.07 11.4248504

141 69.4104 71.5896 5125.07 73.8371757

141.309906

α =0.05

d.f= 1

x^2= 141.31

c.v= 3.84

The P-Value is < 0.00001. The result is significant at p < 0.05.

15 | P a g e




APPENDIX B

TABLE 1

RAW DATA BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & INSTRUCTIONS IN EVERY SETUP

POSITIVE SETUP NEGATIVE SETUP

S1 S2 S3 TOTAL S1 S2 S3 TOTAL

OBEY 231 106 269 606 OBEY 207 95 223 525

DISOBEY 33 6 39 78 DISOBEY 39 14 44 97

TOTAL 264 112 308 684 TOTAL 246 109 267 622

16 | P a g e




TABLE 2

RAW DATA BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EVERY SETUP

MALE FEMALE


OBEY 175 139 207 521 OBEY 291 123 309 610

DISOBEY 46 23 68 137 DISOBEY 14 9 23 30

TOTAL 221 162 275 658 TOTAL 305 132 332 640

TABLE 3

RAW DATA BETWEEN OBEDIENCE & GROUP STATUS IN EVERY SETUP

INDIVIDUAL GROUP STATUS


OBEY 321 134 299 754 OBEY 146 108 123 377

DISOBEY 13 7 14 34 DISOBEY 59 22 60 141

TOTAL 334 141 313 788 TOTAL 205 130 183 518

17 | P a g e




APPENDIX C

GRAPH FOR OBEDIENCE & INSTRUCTIONS

GRAPH FOR OBEDIENCE & GENDER DIFFERENCES

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Positive Negative

606

525

78 97

Obey

Disobey

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

OBEY DISOBEY

521

137

610

30

MALE

FEMALE

18 | P a g e




GRAPH FOR OBEDIENCE & GROUP STATUS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

OBEY DISOBEY

754

34

377

141

INDIVIDUAL

GROUP STATUS

19 | P a g e




APPENDIX D

PILOT STUDY

ACTUAL TESTING DAY 1

20 | P a g e






21 | P a g e




APPENDIX E


Male, disobeying the “Do not

pressing the button” instruction.

Male, attempting to disobey the

“Thank you for not pressing the

button” instruction.

Female, ignoring the experimental set-

up.

Male, disobeying the “Thank you

not pressing the button”

instruction.

22 | P a g e





[Type a quote from the document

or the summary of an interesting

point. You can position the text

box anywhere in the document.

Use the Drawing Tools tab to

change the formatting of the pull

quote text box.]

[Type a quote from the document

or the summary of an interesting

point. You can position the text

box anywhere in the document.

Use the Drawing Tools tab to

change the formatting of the pull

quote text box.]

Group, getting near the set up. Group, attempting to disobey the “Do

not open the box” instruction.

Male, looking in the set up. “We will

appreciate if you will not lift the

cover” .

Group, disobeying the “ Do not lift the

cover.”instruction

23 | P a g e





Group, disobeying the “Do not peek in

the box” instruction.

Male, ignoring the experimental set-up.

Group attempting to disobey the “We will

be grateful if you will not peek inside

the box”instruction.

Female, disobeying the “Do not peek

inside the box”instruction

The Impact of Instructions, Gender Differences, Group Status in Obedience

Documents