| Course | EDP 814 The Social Psychology of Groups |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Doctoral critical review |
| Length | About 1,044 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 814 Module 6
Not Blind but Engaged: Rereading Milgram for an Engineering Team
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 814: The Social Psychology of Groups
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Not Blind but Engaged: Rereading Milgram for an Engineering Team
Near the end of the product team's first year, a vice president asked the engineers to approve test data for a regulatory submission before a deadline, although two engineers had doubts about one test's method. One engineer asked Hana whether it was "like the Milgram thing, where people just go along." The question prompted this review. The team, the company and the vice president are invented for this course.
The Original Study
Milgram (1963) recruited forty men from New Haven through newspaper advertisements for a study described as concerning memory and learning. Each was assigned, through a rigged draw, to be the "teacher," while a confederate played the "learner." The teacher was instructed to give the learner electric shocks of increasing intensity, from 15 to 450 volts, for each wrong answer on a word task. No shocks were actually delivered, but the learner's recorded or staged reactions escalated from complaints to banging on the partition, after which no further answers came. When teachers hesitated, the experimenter responded with four scripted prods of increasing firmness, the last insisting that the teacher had no choice but to continue. All forty participants continued to at least 300 volts, and twenty-six, sixty-five percent, continued to 450 volts. Many showed extreme tension, sweating, trembling and laughing nervously.
The Ethics Critique
Baumrind (1964) criticized the study soon after publication. She argued that participants were subjected to severe distress, that the deception could damage their self-image and their trust in authority and in researchers and that the debriefing was unlikely to undo the harm. She questioned whether the laboratory, where participants expect to defer to the experimenter, was a valid setting for studying obedience. Milgram responded that follow-up surveys showed most participants were glad to have taken part. The debate contributed to the development of research protections, including institutional review and informed consent, examined later in this program.
A Modern Replication
Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication that addressed ethical concerns by ending each session at the 150-volt switch, where in the original series the learner first demanded to be released and after which most who continued went on to the end. Participants were screened for vulnerability, told repeatedly they could withdraw and debriefed immediately. Seventy percent continued past 150 volts, a rate not significantly lower than in Milgram's comparable condition. Obedience in this situation had not disappeared decades later.
Engaged Followership
Haslam and Reicher (2017) reviewed fifty years of research and argued that Milgram's findings have been misread as showing blind conformity. Obedience varied widely across Milgram's own variations, from near zero to over ninety percent. Participants obeyed most when they identified with the experimenter and the scientific enterprise and least when they identified with the learner. Of the experimenter's prods, the one closest to a direct order, "You have no other choice," was most often followed by refusal. Haslam and Reicher proposed that participants were engaged followers, acting because they believed they were contributing to something worthwhile, which makes them responsible for their choices and points to identification as the key process.
| Finding | Critique or update | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| 65% continued to 450 volts (Milgram, 1963) | Obedience varied from near 0% to over 90% across variations | Situations, not people, drive the rate |
| Severe distress among participants | Baumrind (1964): harm, deception, lost trust | Research protections developed |
| Obedience persists (Burger, 2009) | Stopped at 150 volts for ethics | Comparable rates decades later |
| Blind obedience | Haslam and Reicher (2017): engaged followership | Identification with a cause drives compliance |
Applying the Lessons
The engaged followership view fits the engineers' situation better than blind obedience. The vice president did not order them to falsify anything; he appealed to a shared purpose, getting a device to patients on time, and the engineers identify with that purpose. The risk is that identification with the deadline overrides identification with their professional standards and with patients' safety. The response is to strengthen the identities that support careful judgment: making safety the explicit shared purpose, giving engineers a protected route to raise concerns that does not run through the person pressing the deadline and recognizing those who raise doubts.
At the team, Hana asked the regulatory specialists to review the disputed test before approval, and the company's quality office confirmed that any engineer could escalate a data concern directly. The test was rerun; the data held, and the submission went in a week late.
Limits
Laboratory obedience differs from workplace compliance. The engineers knew each other, had professional codes and faced career consequences, none of which Milgram's participants did. The lessons concern the processes that make people comply, not a direct prediction of what professionals will do.
The Variations
Milgram ran many variations after the first study, and the range of results is as instructive as the headline figure. Obedience fell sharply when the learner was in the same room, when the teacher had to place the learner's hand on a shock plate, when the experimenter gave orders by telephone and when two other teachers, confederates, refused to continue. It rose when the teacher only read the words while someone else delivered the shocks. Haslam and Reicher (2017) used these variations to argue that obedience depended on whom participants identified with: proximity to the learner strengthened identification with the victim, while distance from the act strengthened identification with the experimenter. For organizations, the variations suggest that obedience can be designed down as well as up.
Designing for Dissent
The variation in which two peers refused is especially relevant. When others modeled refusal, most participants also refused. In organizations, people who raise doubts make it easier for others to do the same. The company's quality office now asks teams to record dissenting views in submission reviews, so that doubts are visible and others can join them, rather than leaving each engineer to decide alone whether to speak.
Conclusion
Milgram showed that ordinary people would harm another person when an authority urged them on, Baumrind's critique helped shape modern research ethics, Burger found similar obedience decades later and Haslam and Reicher reframed obedience as engaged followership. For organizations, the lesson is not that people obey blindly but that they follow causes they identify with, so leaders must make sure the right cause is in view.
References
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral study of obedience." American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040128
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. (2017). 50 years of "obedience to authority": From blind conformity to engaged followership. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Reading the EDP 814 Module 6 assignment instructions
In Module 6, EDP 814 generally turns to Milgram, asking students to evaluate the obedience studies critically. Rely on your Aspen course's Module 6 instructions; the organizational case here is a composite. Describe the original study accurately, including procedure, participants and results. Examine its ethics with reference to critiques and current standards. Review later research, including replications and reinterpretations. Apply the lessons to obedience in organizations. Keep to APA 7, and avoid repeating the popular account that people obey blindly without considering how later scholars have challenged it. Where you apply the findings, explain the mechanism you think operates in the setting, such as identification with a goal, rather than simply asserting that people obey authority.
How the EDP 814 Module 6 example is put together
Engineers on the composite product team describe pressure from a vice president to approve test data before a regulatory deadline. Milgram's Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology report describes the procedure and finds sixty-five percent obedience to 450 volts. Baumrind's American Psychologist critique raises concerns about distress, deception and trust. Burger's American Psychologist replication stops at 150 volts and finds obedience not significantly lower than Milgram's comparable condition. Haslam and Reicher's review argues that participants obeyed when they identified with the scientific project and that direct orders produced defiance. A table sets each finding beside its critique. The paper explains how Milgram's variations changed obedience and what that implies for designing organizations.
Where the marks sit in the EDP 814 Module 6 rubric
A strong Milgram review describes the study accurately, takes the ethics seriously and engages later research rather than repeating the popular account. This example reports the procedure and results precisely, presents Baumrind's critique and Milgram's context and uses Burger's replication to show what changed in research ethics. The engaged followership reading is applied to the organizational case, leading to practical steps that address identification rather than only authority. The paper notes the limits of applying laboratory findings to workplaces. Its discussion of Milgram's variations shows that the original headline figure was one condition among many, which supports the situational reading. The organizational application names concrete safeguards, such as an escalation route independent of the person applying pressure, and reports what happened when they were used.
EDP 814 Module 6 help from the desk
Milgram papers often repeat that people obey authority blindly. Describe the procedure and variations accurately, including that obedience varied widely across conditions. Engage the ethics critique and the history of research protections it influenced. Use the replication and reinterpretations to update the account. Apply the lessons carefully, attending to identification with a cause. Avoid moralizing about participants; the point is understanding situations. Use Milgram's variations, not only the headline result; the range of obedience across conditions is the strongest evidence that situations matter. Name a mechanism when you apply the findings. Propose concrete safeguards and say how they would work in the setting.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 814 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 814 Module 1: The Self and the Self in Groups
- EDP 814 Module 2: Group Formation, Norms and Roles
- EDP 814 Module 3: Group Performance
- EDP 814 Module 4: Culture, Gender and Groups
- EDP 814 Module 5: Idea Generation and Creativity
- EDP 814 Module 7: Prejudice and Intergroup Conflict
- EDP 814 Module 8: Roles, Power and the Stanford Prison Study
- EDO 818 Module 1: Culture and Leadership
- EDO 820 Module 5: Rule-Breaking and Exceptions
- EDN 814 Module 4: Choosing an Accrediting Body
- EDP 810 Module 4: The Political Frame
EDP 814 Module 6 questions, answered
What does EDP 814 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 814 covers obedience and the Milgram experiment in this module, so a critical review with ethics, later research and application is typical. Check your Module 6 prompt.
What did Milgram find?
In his 1963 report, twenty-six of forty participants continued to the maximum 450-volt shock when instructed by an experimenter, though obedience varied widely in later variations.
Was the Milgram experiment ethical?
Baumrind argued it caused distress and damaged trust through deception; modern standards would not permit it, which is why Burger's replication stopped at 150 volts with extra safeguards.
Where can I find a free EDP 814 Module 6 sample paper?
You can read it all on this page: Milgram's study and its ethics, a modern replication, a reinterpretation of obedience and an application to organizational pressure.
Do people obey blindly?
Haslam and Reicher argue they do not; participants obeyed when they identified with the experimenter's scientific goals, and direct orders tended to produce defiance.