Obedience to authority as a function of the physical proximity of the student, teacher, and experimenter

References

• Arkin, R. M., & Burger, J. M. (1980). Effects of unit relation tendencies on interpersonal attraction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(4), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world. The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, R. L., Robinson, M. D., & Fetterman, A. K. (2011). Miller (1944) revisited: Movement times in relation to approach and avoidance conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1192–1197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/jesp.2011.04.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram. Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cañigueral, R., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2019). The role of eye gaze during natural social interactions in typical and autistic people. Frontiers In Psychology, 10, 560. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspar, E. A., Ioumpa, K., Arnaldo, I., DiAngelis, L., Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. A. (2022). Commanding or being a simple intermediary: How does it affect moral behaviour and related brain mechanisms? eNeuro, 10. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0508-21.2022
   Google Scholar
• Caspar, E. A., Ioumpa, K., Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2020). Obeying orders reduces vicarious brain activation towards victims’ pain. Neuroimage: Reports, 222, 117251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117251
   Google Scholar
• Chaleff, I. (2015). Intelligent disobedience. Doing right when what you are told to do is wrong. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Cheetham, M., Pedroni, A. F., Antley, A., Slater, M., & Jancke, L. (2009). Virtual Milgram: Empathic concern or personal distress? Evidence from functional MRI and dispositional measures. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.029.2009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence, new and expanded. The psychology of persuasion. HarperCollins Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.463
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dambrun, M., Lepage, J., & Fayolle, S. (2014). Victims’ dehumanization and the alteration of other-oriented empathy within the immersive video Milgram obedience experiment. Psychology, 5(17), 1941–1953. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.517197
   Google Scholar
• Dolinski, D., & Grzyb, T. (2020). The social psychology of obedience towards authority. An empirical tribute to Stanley Milgram. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dolinski, D., Grzyb, T., Folwarczny, M., Grzybała, P., Krzyszycha, K., Martynowska, K., & Trojanowski, J. (2017). Would you deliver an electric shock in 2015? Obedience in the experimental paradigm developed by Stanley Milgram in the 50 years following the original studies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 927–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, S. (2011). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x (2)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, S. (2019). Arguing, obeying and defying. A rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge Univeristy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, S. J. (1981). Another look at the Milgram obedience studies: The role of gradated series of shocks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(4), 690–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728174028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giner-Sorolla, R. (2018, January 24). Powering your interaction. Approaching Significance. Retrieved January 28, 2024, from https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/powering-your-interaction-2/
   Google Scholar
• Gobel, M. S., Kim, H. S., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). The dual function of social gaze. Cognition, 136, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, D. (2009). On killing: The psychological costs of learning to kill in war and society. Back Bay Books.
   Google Scholar
• Grzyb, T., & Dolinski, D. (2023, Apr). You and I are alike, so I will hold back - The effect of directed empathy on the behavior of participants of Stanley Milgram’s obedience paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 234, 103859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Millard, K., & Najbauer, J. (2015). Shock treatment: Using immersive digital realism to restage and re-examine Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’ research. PLOS, 10(3), e109015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109015
   Google Scholar
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Herrera, C. D. (2001). Ethics, Deception, and “those Milgram experiments. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18(3), 245–256. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24354234
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hessels, R. S. (2020). How does gaze to faces support face-to-face interaction? A review and perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 27(5), 856–881. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01715-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houston, D. A., Sherman, S. J., & Baker, S. M. (1991). Feature matching, unique features, and the dynamics of the choice process: Predecision conflict and postdecision satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(5), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90001-M
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2011). ‘Protective donation’: When refusing a request for a donation increases the sense of vulnerability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomoriello, A. S., Meconi, F., Rinaldi, I., & Sessa, P. (2018). Out of sight out of mind: Perceived physical distance between the observer and someone in pain shapes observer’s neural empathic reactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1824. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01824
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutsky, N. (1995). When is “obedience” obedience? Conceptual and historical commentary. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01334.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. An experimental view. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, N. (1944). Experimental studies in conflict. In H. M. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (pp. 431–465). Ronald Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. G., Collins, B. E., & Brief, D. E. (1995). Perspectives on obedience to authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01331.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perlstadt, H. (2013). The missing literature review and hypotheses for Milgram’s obedience experiments. Paper presented at Obedience to Authority Conference: Milgram’s Experiments 50 years on, Nipissing University, Bracebridge Ontario.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. The New Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2011). After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram ‘obedience’ studies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02015.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, N. (2019). Understanding willing participants. Milgram obedience experiments and the holocaust (Vol. 2). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, N., & Gregory, R. (2005). Making the undoable doable. Milgram, the holocaust, and modern government. The American Review of Public Administration, 15(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005278511
   Google Scholar
• Saltzman, A. L. (2000). The role of the obedience experiments in the holocaust studies: The case of renewed visibility. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority. Current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm (pp. 125–143). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, E. E. (2015). Dialogic Partners and the Shaping of Social Reality: Implications for good and evil in Milgram’s studies of obedience. Pastoral Psychology, 64(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-014-0596-2
   Google Scholar
• Schkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does living in California make people happy. A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., Pistrang, N., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., & Rustichini, A. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLOS, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039
   Google Scholar
• Uehara, E. (1995). Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s ‘moral norm of reciprocity’ and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(4), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595124001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westmaas, J. L., & Silver, R. C. (2006). The role of perceived similarity in supportive responses to victims of negative life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1537–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291874
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar