HLTH 8247 Week 4 Obedience Study Appraisal Example

Course	HLTH 8247 Social Psychology
Week	Week 4
Paper type	Study appraisal
Length	About 1,080 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 8247 Week 4

Milgram's Obedience Research as a Series of Conditions, Not One Number: An Appraisal of How Proximity, the Experimenter's Presence, Setting and Peers Shifted Obedience, and What the Nursing Replications Add

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 8247: Social Psychology

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title replaces the famous single figure with the variations behind it and names the hospital studies that test its reach, which sets the appraisal's agenda.

The Number Everyone Remembers

In popular memory, Milgram's obedience research comes down to one result: about two-thirds of ordinary people would give what they believed were dangerous electric shocks to another person when told to by an experimenter. That figure comes from Milgram's first published study, in which 26 of 40 men continued to the maximum 450-volt level (Milgram, 1963). Taken alone, it suggests a fixed human tendency to obey. Milgram's later book reported many variations of the procedure, and those variations tell a different story: obedience rose and fell with features of the situation (Milgram, 1974). This appraisal reports those shifts before drawing any lesson for hospital practice.

What this page is doingStarting with the remembered figure and then promising its context frames the appraisal as a correction rather than a summary.

The Procedure

Participants were men aged 20 to 50 from New Haven and nearby towns, recruited through newspaper advertisements and direct mail and paid for their time. They were not undergraduates. Each was told the research asked whether punishment helps people learn and was assigned, by a rigged draw, to be the teacher. The learner, a confederate, was strapped into a chair in another room. The teacher was told to give a shock for each wrong answer, increasing by 15 volts each time. No real shocks were given. When the teacher hesitated, the experimenter used a series of standard prods, such as "The experiment requires that you continue."

The Conditions That Changed Obedience

Milgram (1974) varied the procedure across many conditions. Proximity mattered: when the teacher could hear the learner through the wall, about two-thirds obeyed fully; when the learner sat in the same room, obedience fell; and when the teacher had to press the learner's hand onto a shock plate, it fell further, to about a third. The experimenter's presence mattered: when the experimenter gave instructions by telephone rather than in person, full obedience fell sharply, and some participants gave lower shocks than instructed while reporting that they had followed orders. Setting mattered somewhat: moving the study from Yale to a run-down office building in Bridgeport reduced obedience modestly but did not eliminate it. Peers mattered most: when two other teachers, confederates, refused to continue, very few participants went to the end.

These variations are what the study actually shows. Obedience was not a fixed trait of the participants. It depended on how close the victim was, how close the authority was, how legitimate the setting seemed and whether others resisted.

Later Work

Burger (2009) ran a partial replication in 2006, stopping, for ethical reasons, at 150 volts, where the learner's first spoken protest occurs. Because most of Milgram's participants who passed that point went on to the end, Burger could estimate full obedience. His rates were only slightly lower than Milgram's forty-five years earlier. Contrary to his expectation, seeing a confederate refuse did not reduce obedience in his study, a result that differs from Milgram's peer condition.

Other scholars have questioned how the findings should be read. Haslam and Reicher (2012) argued that participants did not obey passively and unthinkingly; rather, their willingness to continue depended on whether they identified with the experimenter and believed the research was worthwhile. On this reading, the prods that appealed to the scientific goal worked better than a bare order. These critiques do not show that the original results were false. They change what the results mean: from a story about blind obedience to one about conditional cooperation with an authority one trusts.

Why the Variations Are the Finding

A useful way to read the series is to ask what each change removed. Moving the learner closer removed the distance that let the teacher avoid the consequences of his actions. Moving the experimenter out of the room removed the immediate pressure of an authority watching. Moving to Bridgeport removed some of the prestige of a famous university. Adding rebellious peers removed the impression that everyone in the room accepted the procedure. Each removal lowered obedience, and the size of each drop shows how much that feature had been holding obedience up. Seen this way, the study is not a measurement of human nature but an experiment on the conditions under which authority is effective. That reading is more useful for a hospital, because conditions can be designed while human nature cannot.

The Ethical Shadow

Any appraisal of these studies should note that they would not be approved today in their original form. Participants experienced visible distress, believed they might have harmed someone and were deceived about the study's purpose. Burger's design, which stopped at 150 volts and screened out people likely to be harmed, shows how much the procedure had to change to be run again. The ethical limits also limit what can be known: the full-range conditions cannot be repeated, so the original numbers carry more weight than any single study usually should.

The Hospital Studies

Two studies tested obedience in nursing directly. Hofling et al. (1966) arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone nurses on hospital wards and order them to give twice the maximum dose of an unfamiliar drug. Of 22 nurses, 21 were stopped on their way to give the medication. Rank and Jacobson (1977) repeated the idea with changes: the drug was one nurses knew, and they could consult colleagues. Of 18 nurses, only 2 prepared to give the overdose. The contrast is the most useful lesson for practice. When nurses had knowledge of the drug and could talk to peers, obedience to an improper order almost disappeared.

What Applies to Hospital Practice

Three points carry over with care. First, distance and channel matter: orders given remotely, by phone or electronic message, may be both easier to question and easier to follow without thought, depending on whether a verification step exists. Second, peers matter: a colleague who questions an order makes it easier for others to do the same, which supports team structures in which anyone can stop a process. Third, knowledge matters: the Rank and Jacobson nurses refused because they knew the drug and its limits. Training and access to drug information are protections against inappropriate compliance.

The limits are also clear. Milgram's participants were strangers in an unfamiliar role; nurses are professionals with training, licenses and duties of their own. The laboratory setting removed many protections that hospitals have, such as pharmacy checks. The findings suggest where pressure is strongest, not how often errors occur.

References

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLOS Biology, 10(11), Article e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426

Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. (1966). An experimental study in nurse-physician relationships. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-196608000-00008

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.

Rank, S. G., & Jacobson, C. K. (1977). Hospital nurses' compliance with medication overdose orders: A failure to replicate. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18(2), 188-193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2955382

HLTH 8247 Week 4 instructions, in plain terms

Students appraise a classic study in social psychology, reporting its procedure, results and later evaluations before drawing applications. Faculty expect accuracy about the sample and procedure, attention to the variations or conditions that changed results, and engagement with replications and critiques. Applications to health care should be stated with their limits. Ethical issues raised by the study should be acknowledged where they affect what can be known. About six pages in APA style is typical. The appraisal should report numbers only where the source gives them and describe other variations in approximate terms. Separating what the study found from what it is often said to show is the core skill.

Inside the HLTH 8247 Week 4 example

The opening section names the remembered figure and promises its context. The procedure section describes the participants, recruitment, the rigged draw and the prods. A section reports Milgram's variations for proximity, experimenter presence, setting and peers. A new section explains what each variation removed and why the series is the finding. Later work covers Burger's replication to 150 volts and Haslam and Reicher's identification account. A section on ethics explains how the original conditions limit what can be repeated. The hospital section contrasts Hofling and colleagues with Rank and Jacobson. The final section draws three lessons, about distance and channel, peers and knowledge, and names the limits of applying laboratory findings to licensed professionals.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8247 Week 4 rubric

Appraisals of classic studies are graded on accuracy and judgment. A paper that repeats the single headline figure, or misdescribes the participants, loses credit early. The rubric rewards reporting the conditions that changed results, engaging later replications and critiques without overcorrecting, and applying findings with stated limits. Faculty look for careful use of the nursing studies, since they bear most directly on practice. Acknowledging the ethical issues shows maturity. A clear structure that separates findings from applications completes a strong paper. Faculty notice whether the paper keeps findings and applications in separate sections. A paper that moves straight from the shock generator to the nursing station, without the hospital studies in between, tends to overreach. Treating the replication and the critique as refinements rather than refutations shows balance.

HLTH 8247 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks

Appraisals of Milgram's work often begin and end with "most people obey authority." That skips the variations, which are the most informative part of the research. Another common error is treating later critiques as proof the study was wrong. Some papers also apply the findings to nursing without noting how licensed professionals differ from paid volunteers. To write a stronger appraisal, describe the procedure and sample accurately. Report the conditions that raised and lowered obedience. Include one replication and one critique. Use the hospital studies to test the application. State what transfers and what does not. An appraisal of another classic study from your reading list can be prepared for you.

Get a HLTH 8247 Week 4 example written to your instructions

Name the study your section assigned, whether Milgram's or another classic, and send the appraisal prompt with its rubric. The paper you receive reports participants, procedure and every variation before any lesson, gives each later critique its due, and applies the findings only as far as they reach. Allow 24 to 48 hours; a first request is free.

More HLTH 8247 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

HLTH 8247 Week 4 questions, answered

Were Milgram's participants really not undergraduates?

In the main series, no. They were adult men from the surrounding area with a range of occupations, recruited through advertisements and mailings and paid a small fee, and one variation included women. The sample corrects this early because a finding about community adults and a finding about college participants support different generalizations, and graders reading your paper will know which one the reports describe.

Do the later critiques mean the obedience findings are false?

No, and the sample avoids that overcorrection. Archival reexamination raised real questions about script adherence and participant belief, and ethical objections were serious, but partial modern replications stopping at a lower voltage for ethical reasons still found many people continuing. The critiques narrow what the studies show and complicate why people continued; they do not show that the situation had no power.

How far can obedience findings apply to nursing practice?

Only as far as the similarities hold. The sample borrows two findings, that distance from the person affected and the support of a dissenting peer both change compliance, and it names the differences: clinicians have training, a professional duty to question orders and usually someone to consult. Claims that nurses would behave like the laboratory participants go further than the sources allow.

Where can I find a free HLTH 8247 Week 4 sample paper?

You can read the complete Week 4 study appraisal here; it reports Milgram's obedience findings as a series of conditions, adds later replications and two hospital studies, and cites six references.

What do the two hospital studies show together?

When an unknown doctor phoned an order for an overdose of an unfamiliar drug, 21 of 22 nurses were stopped while preparing to give it; when the drug was familiar and nurses could consult colleagues, only 2 of 18 prepared the overdose.