Psychology Research Studies Comparative Methodologies by Alfred Sahagun

Psychology Study Methodologies Comparison in Obedience in Psychology Milgram's Shock Study vs. Hofling´s Doctor Nurse Obedience Experiment in Psychology. Abstract The following essay will discuss different Research Studies in which there were similar or different the methodologies applied the settings of the experimentation and the results of two of the most renowned experiments in the psychological science dealing with Obedience, Milgram's Shock Study and Hofling´s Nurse Obedience Experiment. Introduction In order to best access, evaluate, and interpret research studies reports and findings, we must have a solid use of descriptive statistics as well as sound mathematics; with them the empiric work needed to sustain or deny a proven hypothesis and thus make it into a theory is possible. Without the right and most correct methodology for each research study then the conclusion can tend to be non-conclusive, or simple skewed or biased in some aspects. Therefore, definitely a very important skill is the ability to critically evaluate the research and the methodologies chosen and used by other professional colleagues. In this essay I will focus on how to master than ability of assessing different and most important reasonable comparable research studies. For this I have located two very well-respected and re-known research experimentations studies from their primary sources, both from the same area of Psychological testing and experimentation. When we looked at the methodology sections of both chosen studies we found more similarities than differences. Both applied the Scientific Method of Empiric Observation Recording of Results of the field Experiment. Both applied the experiment to un-aware subjects, though in the case of Milgram´s study the experiment was a little more ambitious and complicated since Doctor Milgram decided to do the case study on two different sets or populations with different programmed settings. When analyzed the methods of both studies, it was found out that both were Field Experiments, in that sense and usually within the Psychology Ground-breaking Research studies, most methodology for research studies is based on the results observations of the different pre-conceived. When comparing the results sections, and that´s the reason why two similar psychological reports were chosen, the results, though in very different field areas like the Education Area (Classroom field setting) and the Hospital Care (Hospital Inpatients setting) it was shocking how in both cases the experiments results matched, in both what was expected to be the reasonable common expected result was opposed, and shocking that both Educator Facilitators were ready to inflict to higher levels of punishment and similarly Nurses were ready to administer excess dosage to patients just for the sake of following orders from a superior, perhaps even depositing their own morale decision on the transference to the command. It´s interesting to point out that Mr. Milgram was trying to answer the question, whether those Nazi official should be judge as guilty of reason or if they operated mostly out of obedience to the system, albeit their own ethical and moral value judgments. The chosen studies were selected due their implications in my area of Master's specialization which is Psychology and its experimentation methodologies and results conclusions and interpretations. EXPERIMENT NUMBER 1: MILGRAM´S OBIDIENCE. Introduction One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram in the years of Post war in 1963. Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist conducted an experiment on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. What is the focus of the researcher's work: The Conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. The stated purpose for the Research Study was to prove the Obedience of an Experimented Subject versus his or her own free will to decide whether to follow a rule that seemed unethical. In fact, it´s been said that Dr. Milgram´s experiment had the final objective of shunning some light into the subject of the Military trials held at that time for ex-Nazi officers found and fleeing. In other words, he attempted to examine the justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they were just following orders from their superiors. The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" (Milgram, 1974). The experiment Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. The experiments began in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. The experiment worked basically in three individuals participated, the one running the experiment (E- Experimenter/Scientist), the subject of the experiment (a volunteer/teacher/punisher role), and a confederate pretending to be a volunteer (an actor in truth). The procedure was that the subject-participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederate actors pretending to be a real participant. The research question was: If the subject would apply unethical or uncomfortable electric shocks to an actor-patience just in order to follow an authority. Milgram extended the results of his experiment toward the field of the Nazi soldiers who committed many inhuman and unethical acts perhaps mostly under the influence of a direct authority line. The main Problem trying to be solved would be the Conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. One of the Benefits of Dr. Milgram metohodology is that he designed an appropriate experiment and eventually in order to get sharper conclusions he devised many experiment variations, up to 18, first with women, then off-campus, then with companions, and many other, to try to get the most light shun on the subject. Why is it appropriate or why is it not? The way he chose random subjects was indeed atypical to say the least, he actually selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University. The experimenter, in this case the Scientific would order the teacher (subject of the Experiment named (T) to give what he or she believed were mild electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an allied actor to the Experimenter. The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University by the psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, men from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience; the experiment found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of people were prepared to obey, albeit unwillingly, even if apparently causing serious injury and distress. These three people occupied three distinct roles: the Experimenter (an authoritative role), the Teacher (a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter), and the Learner (the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher). The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition. At some point prior to the actual test, the "teacher" was given a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator in order to experience firsthand what the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment would feel like. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs that he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-voltincrements for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair. The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electroshock generator, which played prerecorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage-level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease. At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner. If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order: 1) Please continue. 2) The experiment requires that you continue. 3) It is absolutely essential that you continue. 4) You have no other choice, you must go on. And, if the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. Methods The Method set forth in Milgram´s Experiment, was the testing of a Hypothesis through the empirical evidenced recorded from many serial case study subject groups experimentation. The Methodology selected was direct scientific method, with observation, experiment planning and application with the Stanley Milgram Generator scale. In the experiment the learner, who was a confederate actor under the name of Mr. Wallace was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX). Criticism to Methodology. Was there appropriate data collection methods? Charges of data manipulation. After an investigation of the test, Australian psychologist Gina Perry stated that Milgram had manipulated his results. "Overall, over half disobeyed," Perry stated. Why or why not? How do they fit with the methodology decisions made? Milgram argued (in Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View) that the ethical criticism provoked by his experiments was because his findings were disturbing and revealed unwelcome truths about human nature. Others have argued that the ethical debate has diverted attention from more serious problems with the experiment's methodology. Australian psychologist Gina Perry found an unpublished paper in Milgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set-up was to subjects involved. Milgram asked his assistant to compile a breakdown of the number of participants who had seen through the experiments. This unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax, a finding that casts doubt on the veracity of his results. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period.” Were the researcher's methodological decisions appropriate? I believe, yes, he fully applied a scientific method, with all the different steps, and a thorough recording of results and observations, to then be able to draw conclusion based on descriptive statistics. How about the appropriate participant recruitment? The choosing of the participants was far too random from newspaper advertising and the university campus setting made the methodology result somewhat doubtful. Data Sources Do these studies contain appropriate data sources? Experimentation always contains an off-set to reality that it´s hard to say or to measure until what degree an experiment might differ from a real event. And of results would be different then. The data gathered from Milgram´s is far more artificial than the data gathered from Holfling, given the environment of the experiment. On the other hand, the quantity of data and results achieved in all of Milgram´s Experiment Variation leads towards a clearer conclusion that the brief or small number of repetitions to get his data results. The Milgram Shock Experiment also raised questions about the research ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress and inflicted insight suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated; 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[13] Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress. Methods The Method set forth in Milgram´s Experiment, was the testing of a Hypothesis through the empirical evidenced recorded from many serial case study subject groups experimentation. The Methodology selected was direct scientific method, with observation, experiment planning and application with the Stanley Milgram Generator scale. In the experiment the learner, who was a confederate actor under the name of Mr. Wallace was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX). Criticism to Methodology. Was there appropriate data collection methods? Charges of data manipulation. After an investigation of the test, Australian psychologist Gina Perry stated that Milgram had manipulated his results. "Overall, over half disobeyed," Perry stated. Why or why not? How do they fit with the methodology decisions made? Milgram argued (in Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View) that the ethical criticism provoked by his experiments was because his findings were disturbing and revealed unwelcome truths about human nature. Others have argued that the ethical debate has diverted attention from more serious problems with the experiment's methodology. Australian psychologist Gina Perry found an unpublished paper in Milgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set-up was to subjects involved. Milgram asked his assistant to compile a breakdown of the number of participants who had seen through the experiments. This unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax, a finding that casts doubt on the veracity of his results. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period.” Results Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock. He also reached out to honorary Harvard University graduate Chaim Homnick, who noted that this experiment would not be concrete evidence of the Nazis' innocence, due to fact that "poor people are more likely to cooperate." Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school, and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300-volt shock, when the victim refuses to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue and, they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board.” As a synthesis of Milgram´s finding, it can be that in Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40) of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures. Resulting theories Milgram came up with two theories: The first is the “Theory of Conformism”, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject, who has neither expertise nor the ability to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave the decision making to the group and its hierarchy. This experiment was based on Solomon Asch conformity experiments. Where the group as a whole or its hierarchy ends up being is the person's behavioral model. And the hierarchy referred to the scientist or experimenter giving the instruction. And, the second named the “Agentic State Theory” in which according to Milgram "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow”. In other words, the obedience based on being the Agent of another commanding person. Finally, 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was altering the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV). Conclusions Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school and workplace. In Milgram´s own words he summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” published in 1974 he wrote: “The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist … authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.” Once the hypothesis has been tested, recorded, tabulated results, then the thesis is made, and a Law can be developed, in the case of the social or soft science of Psychology we dond´t refer too much to Laws, they are more pertaining to the hard Sciences world (such as physics), therefore in the case of Milgrams' Conclusions he resulted in declaring his Milgram´s Agency Theory, where the agent behavior was over the individual one. Milgram later in 1974 explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people actually have two states of behavior when they are in a social situation: The first would be the autonomous state – people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions. And the second the Agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will. EXPERIMENT No. 2: HOFLING´S NURSE OBIDIENCE The second chosen study was in the same field of psychology, and it was a similar study to make the comparison more logical and relevant. It was the renowned Hofling Hospital Experiment, where Dr. Hofling tried to determine the degree and level of Obedience of Nurses against h own free will. It is very similar to Dr. Milgram´s previously discussed experiente, research, method, and results, in the sense that both where analyzing until what degree an instruction from a superior, the obedience to the command is more relevant and important to follow than even the own personal thoughts, emotions, desires to either stop the punishment/or medical treatment or not to. Remember, to focus this comparative case study paper we must do a reasonable and in-depth analysis and evaluation of methodology applied to both studies. As introduction to this second compared methodology, and experiment I will briefly synthetize the key findings and debates of this experiment introduction. Let´s look at Holfling experiment: The context for this area of study is again the Psychology Experimentation Research Studies thorugh the Evaluation of the 6 steps scientific method. Brief description of Holflings Nurse Obedience study or also named The Hofling field hospital experiment which took place back in the year 1966 by the psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling who ran a field experiment attempting to measure the degree of obedience in the nurse-physician relationship. How did the experiment work? In this experiment the nurses were give directions and commands which at times contradicted their level of experience of knowledge on the patient’s condition, and it was recorded whether or not they chose to simply follow a physicians´ mandate or they would intervene with their own free will. The objective Hofling (1966) created 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. Basically the difference is that the nurses were already practitioner nurses in their work settings, while with Milgram they were merely volunteer setting at a university facility. Therefore the purpose or the Aim of Holfling research, as previously mentioned, to attempt to measure the level of obedience in the relationship among the nurses and physicians. Underlying Question? Whether Individual Experience and Thinking can interfere with a Superior´s Order. In the case of the Hospital Setting in the relation Nurse-Physician. Experiment. The was a naturalistic field experiment which involved 22 night-shift real nurses. An actor by the name of Dr. Smith, who worked as a stooge, would phone the nurses at hospital, on 22 separate occasions, and asked them to check to see if they had the drug Astroten. Then, Dr. Smith gave clear instructions of administering the drug to a patient. When the nurse checks the drug she can see that the maximum dosage is supposed to be 10mg. But the ‘Doctor’ told to administer 20mg of the drug to a patient called ‘Mr. Jones’. Dr. Smith was in a desperate hurry and he would sign the authorization form when he came to see Mr. Jones later on. The nurses were watched to see what they would do. The medication was not real, though the nurses thought it was. If the nurse administers the drug, they will have broken three hospital rules: 1. They are not allowed to accept instructions over the phone. 2. The dose was double the maximum limit stated on the box. 3. The medicine itself as unauthorized, meaning it was not on the hospital ward stock list. The drug itself was a harmless sugar pill invented just for the experiment. Applied Methodology The method or study methodology used again was a Scientific Methodology of Study Observation and Result Recording of a designed Field Experiment. In this field experiment specifically nurses were ordered by unknown doctors to administer what could have a dangerous dose been of sometime they just used a fictional drug or placebo to their patients without the knowledge of their caring nurse. For this psychological experiment it´s very common to use the Scientific Methodology of Observation of the Result of a Test or a Prepared Situation, where to measure simply one of two possible results, yes and no, administering the dose or holding on from it. Also, the study broke the ethical guideline of deception within the medical profession, as neither of the doctors was real. Now, let´s further discuss an in-depth evaluation of the methods adopted but on the Positive side. One of the undeniable benefits or strengths of this research study was that it has high levels of ecological validity, due to the fact it was conducted in a real life environment. Criticism to Research Methodology The pros of this Research Study Methodology or planned experiment at first sight seem to be: With Hofling it all occurred in the natural hospital setting. The situation in which they are tested is a normal one which they will have become used to in their daily jobs, increasing the reliability of the experiment and its ecological validity. On the other hand, the downside of these both experiments (which was later improved some by Dr. Hofling) was that the criticisms with regards to their internal validities. Internal validity is the extent to which the study is valid within itself, meaning if they would occur just the same under normal real life, real time, no observation circumstances, or was the results affected due to experimenter manipulation of other factors? Both Hofling and the discussed Milgram's study in particular were likely to have been influenced by 'demand characteristics', where participants act in a certain way based on what they feel was expected of them, changing their behavior to conform to the experimenter's expectations. Again, under my own perception of strengths or benefits of the chosen methodology was the following. Examining the limitations, drawback of the Case Observation Experiment methodology could have been that some Nurses were aware of the experiment, that the difference in Nurse Background, ethics, preparation, work motivation and so on, could have been more relevant towards their choosing trying to homologate as much as possible the conditions. I imagine that a Professional Nurse with deep personal or motivational issues could have been more prone towards hurting affection or less call it, less empathic towards abstaining them from suffering further or administering as according to the doctor. Even more, the behavior of the Nurses could have been seen as in accordance to what they perceived the examiner's expectations were. Thus, the internal validity would not have been affected by 'demand characteristics'. However, the experimenter did assume the identity of an unknown doctor a “Dr. Smith” and this may have influenced the reactions of the nurses in a way that wouldn't have necessarily been the case, had they knew the doctor they were dealing with. Furthermore, the obedience of the nurses can be put down to the fact that during the time in which the experiment was carried out, nurses were taught to obey doctors' orders and never to question them. For this reason, the nurses responses can be said to have been influenced by 'demand characteristics' In short, the methodology strengths were the ecological validity, and the Hofling did debrief the nurses after the experiment. And the Weakness were more the ethical guideline not followed, the no right to withdraw, no consent , and the deceiving of the nurses as the doctor was not real nor the medicine. The results The could have been alternative Results if the nurses had refused "Dr. Smith's" instructions for any one of several reasons: 1) The dosage they were instructed to administer was twice the recommended safe daily dosage; 2) Hospital protocol stated that nurses should only take instructions from doctors known to them; they should not have followed instructions given by an unknown doctor over the phone; 3) The drug was not on their list of drugs to be administered that day, and the paperwork required before drug administration had not been done. And, even though the experimental protocol was explained to a group of 12 nurses and 21 nursing students, who were asked to predict how many nurses would give the drug to the patient; a whole 10 of the twelve nurses and ALL the nursing students said they (The subject experimented) would not do it. However, in truth it was an astonishing contrary result. When a control group of other nurses were asked to discuss what they would do in a similar situation 21 out of 22 said they would not comply with the order. The nurses were thought to have allowed themselves to be deceived because of their high opinions of the standards of the medical profession. The study revealed the danger to patients that existed because the nurses' view of professional standards induced them to suppress their good judgment. Hofling experiment results concluded that people, staff in general perhaps, in the specific case nurses was and are very unwilling to challenge or question a supposed ‘authority’, even when they might have good reasons to do so. The results were basically absolute, in concluding that in spite of official guidelines forbidding administration of the drug in such circumstances, it was found that 21 out of the 22 nurses would have given the patient an overdose of medicine. Conclusions Whereas in truth, Hofling´s results were that from the selected 22 nurses at a hospital in the United States for the actual experiment. 21 out of 22 (95%) nurses were effortlessly ready to follow instructions by phone and administer the orders. They were not supposed to take instructions by phone, much less to exceed the allowed dosage prescribed in the bottle. The drug was a sugar-pill placebo. Therefore, the main reasonable conclusion from the 21 out of 22 nurses result or 95%, would be that virtually all subjects performing a task under some authority would be willing to simply follow “rules” perhaps by deposit the responsibility in their direct superiors, that the obedience of staff can be seen as total even in spite of their own personal knowledge or convictions. References Basic Psychiatric Concepts in Nursing (1960). Charles K. Hofling, Madeleine M. Leininger, Elizabeth Bregg. J. B. Lippencott, 2nd ed. 1967: ISBN 0-397-54062-0 Textbook of Psychiatry for Medical Practice edited by C. K. Hofling. J. B. Lippencott, 3rd ed. 1975: ISBN 0-397-52070-0 Aging: The Process and the People (1978). Usdin, Gene & Charles K. Hofling, editors. American College of Psychiatrists. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers The Family: Evaluation and Treatment (1980). ed. C. K. Hofling and J. M. Lewis, New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers Law and Ethics in the Practice of Psychiatry (1981). New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, ISBN 0-87630-250-9 Custer and the Little Big Horn: A Psychobiographical Inquiry (1985). Wayne State University press, ISBN 0-8143-1814-2 Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N. & Bierce, C. (1966). An experimental study of nurse-physician relations. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, 171-180. https://explorable.com/stanley-milgram-experiment McLeod, S. A. (2008). Hofling Hospital Experiment. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/hofling-obedience.html APPENDIX ANNEX 1 Interesting Newspaper Solicit for the Actors and Research Experiment Volunteers