The results tell us that people don't question authority, even when they might have good reason to. I also think the results are good, as they have a high ecological validity as the study was carried out in a hospital with real nurses. It also has a high reliability because the study was carried out 22 times. However, the study has ethical issues because it could have caused some psychological harm to the nurses.
Humans are programmed to obay authority figures even if they are halming somebody. This is because all through life at school amd home etc we are told to obay people in authority,
Hofling conducted the study to see how authority affected obedience as a follow-on from Milgram's experiment. The results show that humans are obedient to people who have more authority over them as we are taught from a young age to obey our parents and teachers. Hofling's study has high ecological validity as it was a natural experiment in a real hospital with real nurses, but it has ethical issues as none of the nurses were aware that they were being watched
it is innate to us humans to listen and take notice of us higher than us in society, this study shows how you wont actually know how to act unless your in this situation, hofflings study showed how people don't necessarily think of the consequences, this supports milgrams study as it shows how people can be easily influenced by others
Hofling did the study to create a more realistic study of obedience than Milgram’s by carrying out field studies on nurses who were unaware that they were involved in an experiment. One weakness of Hofling's study is that he didnt use a very big sample
Hofling created a study that was more realislic that Milgram's to show how obediant people were when given an order by an authority figure. The study showed that people are very unwilling to question an 'authority' figure even when they didn't completely agree with what they are told to do.
There is high ecological validity within this experiment, although I'm not entirely sure if this grants me great faith in the nurses, especially if they were aware of those 3 rules. If they read the labels of the medicine and saw the proper dosage, perhaps an individual suggesting otherwise ought to prompt them to ask yet another member of authority.
Overall, an experiment that doesn't appear to be wholly straightforward but after reading it a couple of times, I think I understood it.
I agree, the experiment has high ecological validity, although the ethics may play a big problem in the critisms.
Then again, 1966 is a long time ago, surely the NHS has improved, especially the night nurses and discipline, if not I'm a bit worried
You shouldn't go against the rules and place a man's life at risk because someone on the phone asked you to, especially without other options such as getting in touch with another doctor :S
Hofling's study has high ecological validity because the experiment was carried out in a real-life environment. This increases the reliability of the results which also means that the study is trust-worthy.
One strength of Hofling's study is that it was high in ecological validity as it was taken place in a natural setting, however a weakness would be that it raises ethical issues about deception and the nurses not knowing that they were under observation.
the experiment has high ecological validity due to it being carried out in a real hospital with real nurses, but you would think that it would have slightly different results for different proffesions as nurses are trained to trust the jugement of doctors so it lacks validity in that area.
the experiment does show high ecological validity,this shows that the results at the end would be more reliable but because it was in a hospital results could have varied due to nurses that they hadn't seen before.also he didn't use a big enough sample. Hofling showed that you could change your mind in a situation even if you though if you were put in that situation you wouldn't. A figure of authority can change peoples opinions even if they though the wouldn't be swayed.
Hofling's study shows that humans have an in built capacity to obey authoritive figures, even if the circumstances could harm others. The experiment has high ecological validity, being performed in a real hospital, and was repeated enough times to make the results reliable.
Hofling did a study to show Milgrams experiment, but in a natural enviroment. This gave the study more ecological validity because it was done in an enviroment that the nurses were used to, and comfportable in.
I thikn Hofflings study had a lot of ecological validity as it was in a more natural environment but i thikn it wasnt really ethical as the nurses didnt know they were being observed!
sorry jenny that was conor who put that comment!
Holfing found that people will not question authority, even if what they are doing is wrong.
E.g. harming someone.
Hoffling (1966) carried out an experiment like Milgrams experiment on obedience. He tried to make it more realistic by using nurses who were unaware they were taking part in the experiment.
The nurses were phoned and asked by a Doctor (strooge)if they had astrogen. When they said yes he told them to give a injection of 20mg to the patient Mr Jones (strooge) and he would check on him when he got back. Although the nurses knew this would overdose the patient (max is 10mg) and break the rules of complying to instructions given over the phone and using medicine thats not on the stock ward list, 21 out of 22 complied to the experiment. Luckily for Mr Jones the drug was a placebo.
Hoffling conclueded that people must be unwilling to question supposed authority.
The experiment is valid in that it has ecological validity. but it is very unethical as they did not have the nurses concent and they decived them.
I think the experiment is more realistic is more valid than Milgram's experiment but i think it was very unfair on the nurses because they didnt have a choice to do the exeriment and i would hate that to happen to me. :)
Hofling's aim of the study was to improve upon Milgrams experiment and create a more realistic study for obediance. The main point he wanted to find out was if the nurses would do what the authority figure said, or if they would disobey and follow the hospital rules. He found that 21 of the 22 participants carried out what the authority figure had asked.
hofling's study shows that people respond to authority figures even if what they are telling them to do is wrong or is causing someone harm.
Hofling's study showed that people are unwilling to question authority even though they may know what they are doing is wrong.
This study had high ecological validity as it took place in a real life environment with real nurses who were unaware that they were part of the study.
It is also easily replicable because of the strong controls.
The Negative effects were that is was unethical to deceive the nurses.
Also the nurses were female and male nurses may have reacted differently in this situation.
Hoflings studys is a development upon Milgrams, it shows that people do not question authority even when they know they are in the wrong.
I feel this experiment is relaible as it has strong ecological validity, however there is an ethical issue as Hofling didnt have the nurses concent and decived them.
This is more reliable than Milgrams as it was a much more realistic experiemnt
Even though Hofling's study clearly shows that people respond to authority figures, my evaluation is that a strength of this study is that it has high levels of ecological validity, due to the fact it was conducted in a real life environment. However, the study broke the ethical guideline of deception.
Hoflings study was in a more natural environment than Milgram's which means it would have a higher ecological validity. It is also interesting to see what other nurses who didnt do the experiment said they would do in the same situation even though it hasnt actually happened to them. If they were in the experiment, it would be interesting to see if they may conform and change their decisions. The experiment also shows how people obey members of authority as the nurses were breaking the hospital rules just because a doctor had told them to do it. Weaknesses of this experiment would be ethics because the nurses were deceived
Due to Millgram's experiment into obedience to authority figures like the doctors mention in this investigation, We learn that human's are subservient when the thing the time is right, and do not like to disobey direct orders from people who have either a high social status but also higher authority in the work place, Hence the results that we concluded from this experiment
In 1966, Hofling aimed to improve the validity of Milgram's study of obedience by carrying out field studies on nurses where ambiguity was high.
This experiment clearly shows that if an average person is confronted, verbally or physically, by a higher state of authority, then that person will conform to the desired wish of said authority - this is shown here by the nurses as a result of breaking three hospital rules and possibly putting the patient at risk (if it was not the sugar pill they had replaced).
This experiment is easy to understand, but the validity of ONLY using nurses in comparison to Milgram's experiment using a varied range of different people with different jobs/lifestyles/cultures, etc. makes it less valid than Milgram's, in my opinion.
Hofling's study is a 'real life' version of Milgram's study, it is applied in a 'real life' situation thus having the ecological validity that Milgram's study doesn't have.
The results tell us that people mostly do what people tell them to do if they have an authroity over them and that they will do what they say even if it breaking the rules that they have been told to stay with. If you look at Milgrams experiment it is all about obidience to authority and this is what Hofling tried to do with his study by trying to get the nurses to do what he asks over the phone and by doing whatr he said they were listening to an authority figure.
Whilst the experiment has high ecological validity, it isn't necessarily better in that field than Milgram's due to the concept of authority being one that could occur in practically any given situation, with each being as valid as the other. However, the nurses' willingness to obey may have been to do with the fact that they were under the impression that their compliance was vital to the health of a patient they had responsibility to care for, resulting in the potential consequences of their breaking protocol seeming less significant. This may account for the higher levels of obedience observed in this experiment than in Milgram's. Regardless, the results of the two investigations support each other: most people are willing to obey authority even when it may be against their better judgement.
Hoflings study is more reliable than milgrams because it was done in a real life sitution meaning a strength would be high ecological validity, but in order for the exeriment to be more reliable the experiment broke the ethical guidlines of psychology by using deception on real life nurses who thought they were in a real situation.
Hofling's study has high ecological validity because the experiment was carried out in a real life environment. Which increases the reliability of the results. Also making it more reliable that Milgrams.
Hoflings main aim in this study was to show how many people (nurses) were willing to give an injection to a person which would break 3 hospital rules. his study shows that 95% of them would, this shows that a lot of people are willing to do something they are not meant to when they are instructed by people with higher authority. Hoflings wanted to do an observation which was much more realistic than Milgram's to see if the differences in the studies would make any difference to the outcome.
The results show that people will probably carry out something if they are given instructions by someone with more power than them. In this case the doctor had more authority than the nurses so 95% of them followed the instructions given. Hofling's study was more realistic than Milgram's because it was done in a real situation without the nurses knowing.
Hofling conducted the study to see if nurses would obey an order given by an authority figure which went against the rules of the hospital. Some of the rules they broke included taking orders over the phone and from an unknown doctor. Despite this, 21 of 22 nurses were prepared to obey. The experiment had high ecological validity as it was applied in a 'real life' situation.
Hofling's study told us that people follow a higher figure and were less likely to question this person if they were given a title and had a higher status in society than the individual in question.
This experiment has high ecological validity because it took place in a working hospital and the nurses didn't know they were part of the experiment.
However the nurses didn't give permission for the experiment to be carried out with them taking part, therefore ethical issues is a major factor, this experiment would not have been allowed today because of this.
Hoflings experiment showed that most people wont question someone of 'authority' even though they have a reason to, because the experiment was conducted in a real life situation it has high validity although the study breaks ethic guidelines.
Hoflings experiment was a more realistic study then Milgram's study as it had a high ecological validity as it was done in a natural environment. it showed that people are willing to follow orders from authority. whether the orders are right or wrong.
Hofling's study was more accurate than Milgram's study as it had higher ecological validity as it was done in a natural environment. 21 of the 22 nurses obeyed the "Doctor's" orders. They were later fired from their job for not following hospital procedures. They took orders that disobeyed the procedures of the hospital because they were given instructions from somebody with a higher power. This shows how obedience is taken even in a strict situation/job such as a hospital. In a matter of life and death, the nurses were deceived that the "Doctor's" orders were the best to follow in order to keep their patient alive, regardless of what the set procedures already are.
hofling created a more ecological valid study and found that most people are unwilling to disobey authority figures even when there a set rules that must not be broken, but in the 1960s healthcare was not as good as it is today where staff have better quality training and can make their own decisions without being dependant on an authority figure like a doctor also the commands given by the doctor seemed to be legitimate and the nurses could fear the outcome of disobeying the orders like adolf eichmann if he disobeyed the orders he received he may have been executed, the theory of "the Germans are different" was quickly dissolved by milgram finding that around 65% obeyed an authority figure but other studies found that there are cultural variations in obediance as individualist culture like Britain and America have less obediance than collectivist cultures like China and Japan
Hofling's research shows us that humans have an inclination to obey authority figures, often without question, especially when responsibility for the action is taken by the authority figure. His research also supports the 'agency theory' as the nurses in this experiment would hopefully not have administered above the recommended dosage of their own accord, but because they can pass responsibility on to the doctor, they are more likely to go through with his request.
This study tells us that even if people may not agree with an action they will comply because an authority figure has told them too. this also shows that people aren't willing to question someone in power even if this means that they harm others. it also has high ecological validity because it was in the natural environment and the nurses didnt even know the experiment was taking place.
The results tell us that although may have a good reason to question authority, they are still very unwilling to do so. The strength of this study is that it has high levels of ecological validity, due to the fact it was conducted in a real life environment however, it could be seen as unethical because the nurses were deceived into thinking the doctor was real.
Add to blog to make me nice and happy !