In a replication of a famous psychology experiment, researchers found that people are just as likely to follow harmful orders from a female authority figure as they are from a male one. The research suggests that the power of professional rank can override common stereotypes about leadership. The findings were recently published in the journal Social Psychology.
The original obedience experiments took place in the early 1960s. Participants believed they were delivering increasingly powerful electric shocks to an unseen person who was failing a memory test. Even when the subject cried out in pain, the scientist in charge commanded the participant to continue. A majority of people pushed the voltage dial all the way to its maximum setting simply because they were told to do so.
Those historic trials involved three primary characters. The actual participant played the role of the teacher. An actor working with the science team played the learner. A researcher served in the role of the experimenter. Over the decades, many academic teams have recreated parts of the scenario to understand the specific triggers for human obedience.
Past replications have manipulated the demographics of both the teacher pressing the buttons and the learner receiving the hypothetical shocks. Neither of those variables generally changes the rate of obedience. People are willing to punish male and female learners at similar rates. The physical sex of the participant issuing the punishment also has no effect on the outcome.
Lead author Tomasz Grzyb and his colleagues noticed an overlooked element in the existing literature. No study had directly investigated whether the physical sex of the authority figure might influence compliance. The team wanted to know if a male scientist or a female scientist would elicit different responses from participants. Theoretical models of social influence suggested it could go in either direction.
One theory notes that men often hold higher perceived status in general public settings. Based on standard social stereotypes, a man might naturally command more respect and push people to blindly follow rules. A competing theory suggests that women are often perceived as warmer and more approachable. This approachability could theoretically make participants like the scientist more, increasing their willingness to cooperate with the shocking procedure.
To test the dynamics, Grzyb and his team recruited 80 volunteers for a laboratory test. The modern setup utilized a modified framework designed to protect the psychological wellbeing of the participants. Instead of allowing the voltage to climb to extreme simulated levels, the modern version halts the test at a minor threshold. This limits exposure to stress while allowing scientists to measure a person’s willingness to harm another.
The participants arrived at a designated facility to engage in memory research. A scientist posing as a psychology professor greeted them in the room. Half of the volunteers were introduced to a male professor. The other half met a female professor.
The real participant was assigned to act as the teacher. The fake learner was escorted into an adjacent room where they communicated through a two-way audio system. The teacher read a list of paired syllables through the microphone. When the learner provided an incorrect answer, the teacher had to press a switch on a mechanical generator.
Each error required the teacher to move up to the next voltage setting. The switches were explicitly labeled with warnings describing the severity of the damage. As the shocks escalated, the actor in the other room responded with increasingly loud vocal expressions of pain. If a teacher paused or refused to flip the switch, the standing professor issued standard verbal prods to force compliance.
The trial ended for a specific volunteer if they refused to proceed after four consecutive verbal commands. It also concluded if they successfully reached the tenth button on the generator. The experimenters recorded how many individuals went all the way to the end. The final data revealed that the scientist’s physical gender altered almost nothing about the human behavior in the room.
Exactly 88 percent of the group complied with every instruction from the female professor. By comparison, 90 percent of the volunteers followed every command from the male professor. The variance between these two outcomes was not statistically significant. The specific demographic identity of the scientist had no real impact on whether the volunteer chose to inflict pain.
The team also measured secondary factors. They counted how many times the scientists had to issue a stern verbal prompt. They specifically tracked the exact voltage level where the few disobedient individuals chose to rebel. Neither of these metrics displayed a difference based on the gender of the authority figure.
The small laboratory study carried a few methodological limitations. The staggeringly high compliance rate meant few participants provided an example of rebellion. The researchers suspected this dynamic might hide subtle psychological shifts regarding sexism and authority. To gather more varied data, the researchers launched a second project using a digital surveying platform.
This online operation recruited nearly 800 Polish internet users. They were asked to read and imagine a scenario identical to the shock generator room. Half the group imagined receiving their orders from a female professor, while the other half imagined a male professor. The subjects had to indicate precisely when they would abandon the operation and refuse to press any more buttons.
The digital simulation also allowed the team to administer a psychological questionnaire. The survey measured ambivalent sexism, recording a participant’s belief in traditional gender stereotypes. The scientists suspected that people who scored high on the sexism scale might balk when ordered around by a female leader. This hypothesis assumes that systemic biases make people resentful of women occupying dominant academic positions.
Once again, the gender of the imagined scientist did nothing to shift the average obedience mark. Participants were entirely willing to shock the imaginary victim regardless of who was running the show. The sexism survey produced an unexpected set of insights. Participants exhibiting higher levels of systemic sexism actually reported an elevated willingness to hurt the learner.
This increased obedience happened equally across both the male and female scientist conditions. The authors suggest this result ties into a massive psychological concept known as authoritarianism. Sexism is frequently correlated with an overarching psychological respect for strict social hierarchies. People who heavily favor traditional societal structures are generally more prone to accepting orders without asking questions.
The researchers theorize that a general adherence to hierarchy might overpower specific gender biases. If someone strongly respects the title of university professor, they might entirely disregard the biological sex of the person running the laboratory. An established professional role offers a unique form of status that neutralizes standard assumptions. They argue that when authority is embedded within a clearly defined social role, the physical traits of the person commanding the room fade away.
The authors mention a few caveats regarding their work. Evaluating human compliance through hypothetical online scenarios lacks the visceral tension of an in-person confrontation. What people claim they will do on the internet rarely maps perfectly to their real-world actions. The team still notes that the combination of physical and digital trials provides a strong initial foundation for researching this variable.
Regional differences also offer an avenue for future investigation. These trials took place in Poland. National economic data points out that Poland has a slightly lower gender wage gap than the European Union average. A deeply ingrained cultural acceptance of women in professional management positions might be skewing the results toward equality.
Conducting analogous investigations in nations with steeper divides might reveal a different pattern of willingness to rebel. Future attempts could also test completely different types of authority figures. A corporate executive or a military officer might prompt entirely distinct reactions compared to a mild-mannered academic. The team recommends explicitly measuring authoritarianism alongside other personality traits in future lab simulations.
Reporting on scenarios where variables fail to alter human behavior holds immense scientific utility. It prevents future investigators from relying on untested assumptions regarding male dominance in leadership roles. Based on these two experiments, an individual’s capability to demand compliance appears totally unbounded by physical characteristics. Indeed, the researchers conclude that pathological authority “knows no gender.”
The study, “Authority Knows No Gender – Gender Effects in Exerting Obedience in Milgram’s Experiment,” was authored by Tomasz Grzyb, Dariusz Dolinski, and Katarzyna Cantarero.
